Nov 12, 2017 10:49 PM
Philosophers of science go back to the drawing-board
https://www.theguardian.com/science/life...challenges
EXCERPT: [...] I am a philosopher of science and I have taken an active interest in DES (Dark Energy Survey) over the past few years because DES — like most of the high-energy physics currently going on at CERN, which is also part of my research interests — raise important and surprisingly analogous methodological questions about how evidence, model-building, and ultimately theory choice are deeply inter-related.
[...] A typical measure of scientific success is the ability of a scientific theory to deliver novel predictions, which — if experimentally proved — might constitute an important advance for our scientific knowledge. Philosophy of science has built an industry around confirmation theory. But unprecedented methodological challenges are facing contemporary cosmology and particle physics today. These challenges force philosophers to go back to the drawing-board and re-think some of the traditional ways of thinking about scientific progress in cutting-edge areas, where fast-growing technologies are delivering an unprecedented wealth of experimental data, and model-building is crucial in the interface between experimentalists and theoreticians. Two major methodological challenges arise equally in contemporary cosmology and particle physics....
MORE: https://www.theguardian.com/science/life...challenges
Diekemper vs Barbour: The Dance of Time
PART 1: The present is nothing but a border between the past and the future.
https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekempe...e-auid-629
PART 2: Julian Barbour replies that arguing over past and future is to miss what really matters.
http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekemper...2-auid-630
PART 3: Diekemper underlines the necessity of philosophy to our understanding of time.
http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekemper...3-auid-639
PART 4: Barbour disagrees: science will ultimately always take precedence over philosophy.
https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekempe...4-auid-640
EXCERPT: In response to Joseph Diekemper, I think science will ultimately always take precedence over philosophy, which, I would say, is at its best when questioning existing concepts and suggesting ideas to science.
Moving on to the specific points, Diekemper says his "definition of the passage of time would be stated in terms of events having occurred". But how do you know an event has occurred? I think the minimum requirement is a difference in the world; I should have emphasized difference rather than change. Moreover, in connection with what we call the passage of time, the nature of the difference is generally very characteristic. Take two photos of me a decade apart. They are different; moreover, the whole Julian looks older in one than in the other. It is not the case that my face looks older but my hands younger.
When it comes to real disagreement, Joseph says my view "entails that the change which we both take to be fundamental to our experience of time is illusory and non-existent. There is no real change on his view, there are just three-dimensional slices – the Nows – eternally coexisting, and these never change."
I agree that in my view each Now is fixed once and for all. But, first, every Now is richly structured and, second, every Now is different from every other Now. And, if my concept is correct, all the Nows can be arranged uniquely in a timeline on the basis of the differences between them. Neither the structure in each Now nor the differences between them is illusory.
What we call the passage of time has three aspects: first, what we experience in each instant is richly structured (certainly if we have our eyes open); second, no two instants are exactly alike; third, we see things moving. Of these three I only question the third (I suspect it is an artefact of the brain's creation of what we experience in consciousness). The first two are definitely not illusory. Thus, when Joseph claims my theory implies "every aspect of our experience of the world would be pervaded by illusion", that is definitely not correct. I have never dreamed of denying the first two of the aspects of experience I listed above. I don't think anyone would do that. I only question the fleeting third. In that, I am certainly not alone.
- - -
https://www.theguardian.com/science/life...challenges
EXCERPT: [...] I am a philosopher of science and I have taken an active interest in DES (Dark Energy Survey) over the past few years because DES — like most of the high-energy physics currently going on at CERN, which is also part of my research interests — raise important and surprisingly analogous methodological questions about how evidence, model-building, and ultimately theory choice are deeply inter-related.
[...] A typical measure of scientific success is the ability of a scientific theory to deliver novel predictions, which — if experimentally proved — might constitute an important advance for our scientific knowledge. Philosophy of science has built an industry around confirmation theory. But unprecedented methodological challenges are facing contemporary cosmology and particle physics today. These challenges force philosophers to go back to the drawing-board and re-think some of the traditional ways of thinking about scientific progress in cutting-edge areas, where fast-growing technologies are delivering an unprecedented wealth of experimental data, and model-building is crucial in the interface between experimentalists and theoreticians. Two major methodological challenges arise equally in contemporary cosmology and particle physics....
MORE: https://www.theguardian.com/science/life...challenges
Diekemper vs Barbour: The Dance of Time
PART 1: The present is nothing but a border between the past and the future.
https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekempe...e-auid-629
PART 2: Julian Barbour replies that arguing over past and future is to miss what really matters.
http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekemper...2-auid-630
PART 3: Diekemper underlines the necessity of philosophy to our understanding of time.
http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekemper...3-auid-639
PART 4: Barbour disagrees: science will ultimately always take precedence over philosophy.
https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/diekempe...4-auid-640
EXCERPT: In response to Joseph Diekemper, I think science will ultimately always take precedence over philosophy, which, I would say, is at its best when questioning existing concepts and suggesting ideas to science.
Moving on to the specific points, Diekemper says his "definition of the passage of time would be stated in terms of events having occurred". But how do you know an event has occurred? I think the minimum requirement is a difference in the world; I should have emphasized difference rather than change. Moreover, in connection with what we call the passage of time, the nature of the difference is generally very characteristic. Take two photos of me a decade apart. They are different; moreover, the whole Julian looks older in one than in the other. It is not the case that my face looks older but my hands younger.
When it comes to real disagreement, Joseph says my view "entails that the change which we both take to be fundamental to our experience of time is illusory and non-existent. There is no real change on his view, there are just three-dimensional slices – the Nows – eternally coexisting, and these never change."
I agree that in my view each Now is fixed once and for all. But, first, every Now is richly structured and, second, every Now is different from every other Now. And, if my concept is correct, all the Nows can be arranged uniquely in a timeline on the basis of the differences between them. Neither the structure in each Now nor the differences between them is illusory.
What we call the passage of time has three aspects: first, what we experience in each instant is richly structured (certainly if we have our eyes open); second, no two instants are exactly alike; third, we see things moving. Of these three I only question the third (I suspect it is an artefact of the brain's creation of what we experience in consciousness). The first two are definitely not illusory. Thus, when Joseph claims my theory implies "every aspect of our experience of the world would be pervaded by illusion", that is definitely not correct. I have never dreamed of denying the first two of the aspects of experience I listed above. I don't think anyone would do that. I only question the fleeting third. In that, I am certainly not alone.
- - -
![[Image: 1200px-Waveforms.svg.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Waveforms.svg/1200px-Waveforms.svg.png)
