Philosophy and Science

- or -
Does it matter if we know
what were talking about?
 Science: Systematized knowledge covering
general truths or the operation of general
laws, esp. as obtained and tested through
scientific method.
Philosophy: The study of the most general
and abstract features of the world and the
categories with which we think. In
philosophy the concepts with which we
approach the world themselves become the
topic of enquiry.
 Yeah? Whats that to me?
You have all had some training in physics &
math. So:
What is mass?
What is electric charge?
2

What is energy?
What is infinity?
Why arent there more complex numbers
than there are real numbers?
How do I measure 2 ?
 Browns Paradox
Magnetic domain wall motion explains the
quantitative properties of iron.
- but -
The math tells us magnetic domain walls
cannot form.
- but -
Lab experiments tell us they do.
 Rationalism vs. Empiricism
Browns Paradox is an example of the clash
between rationalism & empiricism. (In this
instance it looks like rationalism loses).
The great rationalists: Plato, Descartes,
Leibniz, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, De
Broglie, Bohr.
The great empiricists: Aristotle, Locke,
Berkeley, Hume, Newton, Faraday.
The great materialists: There arent any.
The Bandwidth Paradox
 What do we get when we
measure a signals spectrum?
We get a signal plus noise
 What is this really?
Plato: The signal signal and the noise signal
are both real. The signal bandwidth is really
infinite. The only reason we cant perceive it is
because our senses are limited and deceptive.
Aristotle: What we see is what is real. There is
only one signal. To say otherwise is mere
speculation. It is absurd to say the bandwidth is
infinite because infinity does not really exist. It is
merely a becoming. The form of a thing changes
to a new form, and this becoming is called
enrgeia. Signal and noise are just names by
which we call different aspects of the form. It is
Platos world that is not real.
 No, really. What is this?
Kant: The measurement shows us the appearance
of a real object. But this appearance looks like it
does because of the way our powers of perception
work. Plato is wrong to say the signals are really
Ideas and our senses err. Aristotle is wrong to say
the object stamps its impress on our minds. We
understand the object through our concepts of it.
But we must be very careful not to let our
concepts go beyond what we can actually
experience because we cannot know what we
cannot actually experience. We call our
understanding of the world Nature. Nature is our
model of the world.
 Kants Philosophy
Rationalism by itself does not work
Empiricism by itself does not work
Both take ontology as their center
Ontology is our understanding of objects
Epistemology is the science of knowledge
Ontology must come out of epistemology
We must first understand knowledge. Only
then can we understand objects.
Objects will conform to our powers of
cognition, not the other way around.
This science is called Critical Philosophy.
 The Critical Question

Principal Quantities: Those parts of B that correspond to

measurements made in A
Secondary Quantities: Those parts of B that are
abstractions making equations solvable but which have no
counterparts in A
Scientific Constructs
How far can constructs go?
What must we do to trust math?
 Other Implications
Differential Calculus
f t h f t h
f t t
3
f t lim
h 0 2h
6ht 2 2h 3
f t lim
h 0 2h
0
but is undefined
0
Newtons absolute evanescent quantities
Einsteins relativity
Slepians rule again. No physical infinitesimals
 Infinity
Math says the infinite set is an axiom
There exists at least one set W with the
properties
a O W
b if x W , then x x W
This means the set is made up of
O, O, O, O, O, O, O, O
What the heck is this? A big set of nothing?
It is a definition of counting in disguise.
 How to get into trouble
0=0=0+0+0+...
0 = (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + . . .
= 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + . . .
=1+0+0+0+...
=1
Infinite series are a matter of limits.
Whenever things like this come up math has
to go back in and fix them. They call this
analysis.
The moral: Infinity is a becoming.
 Okay, what about logic?

In the village of Cleancheeks, Nebraska,

everyone is clean-shaven. The village has
one barber and his name is Joe. Joe shaves
everyone who does not shave himself and
he shaves no one who does shave himself.
Sounds pretty reasonable, does it not?
 Well, then,
Who shaves Joe?
Option 1: Joe shaves himself. But Joe does
not shave anyone who shaves himself.
Therefore Joe does not shave himself.
But (option 2): Joe shaves everyone who
does not shave himself. Therefore Joe
shaves himself.
But . . .
This is known as the Russell Paradox.
Kant: Logic must have both a formal part
and a transcendental part that deals with
objects.
 The Lessons to be Had
Do not mistake mathematical reality for
physical reality
Know where the objective validity for your
ontological objects come from
Know what the principal quantities you
need from your math model are
Make sure these quantities are not sensitive
to small changes in the secondary quantities
of your math model
Simulations are not experiments. Go to the
lab once in awhile
Thanks for listening!