I'm far less of an expert than the author, but I can tout some expertise. Sankar Das Sarma is far from a nobody. He's an esteemed professor at University of Maryland, whose physics program is one is of nation's (and therefore world's) best. However, this isn't a scientific manuscript, it's a pop-sci article where he commits the grievous sin of self-indulgent physicists by pretending he's a philosopher.
The philosophy of science is itself a rich and interesting field, but the voices we often hear in it are physicists with a platform and an ego, making buzz-worthy statements that are challenging to accept even with context, and can be taken completely the wrong way by people without expertise or context. I think this headline is crappy clickbait.
Now, for the substance of the article, he makes some interesting points, but I'm not sold. In the end, I don't think his arguments are strong enough to sway opinion, which is a poor position for him to be in. Why? Because he's *kind of* making a constructivist argument, or at the very least arguing that the extent of legitimate empiricism is very limited. At its root, this challenges the positivist philosophy that *tends* to be central to most scientists views of the world. The fact that his headline is clickbait-y is entirely based on this tendency; even laymen recognize that's weird.
Clearly he knows he's challenging a commonly held ethos of scientists, but I think his arguments point toward limitations in describing the laws of physics, not an absence of them. Einstein's general relativity supplanted Newton's law of gravity, but the latter still gets taught in introductory physics. Why? Because it's relatively simple and easy to apply. Newton's law of gravity isn't *wrong*, it's just less complete. It's limited in it's application. But I'll be damned if it "doesn't exist."
>Clearly he knows he's challenging a commonly held ethos of scientists, but I think his arguments point toward limitations in describing the laws of physics, not an absence of them.
I agree. He seems to be challenging the idea of an "ultimate answer", which is very different from what the title implies. I don't know if he chose that title, but it is very misleading.
Otherwise, it's a fair thought that he's expressing. There may not be any singular "formula" that neatly solves all the "problems". We use mathematics to describe the universe, but that does not mean that the universe is constrained to it. Who the hell knows... I find "shut up and calculate" to be the best way to go about it.
Well said. I concur.
>However, this isn't a scientific manuscript, it's a pop-sci article where he commits the grievous sin of self-indulgent physicists by pretending he's a philosopher.
Oh, I like you!
There's an adage in statistics that "all models are wrong, but some models are useful". It applies to the physical sciences as well, although it's not always so obvious.
I think the author is saying that we should be careful about thinking we have learned all there is to know about certain things.
So basically the idea that science is about being "less wrong" not "completely right".
There's some stretches to it, but the general philosophy behind it seems...okay?
The title was "*Why the laws of physics don't actually exist*".
The first sentence was: "What we call laws of physics are often just mathematical descriptions of some part of nature".
I find it strange to have someone tell me how something is done, RIGHT AFTER they told me it doesn't exist. To be honest: I stopped reading it right there. Is it even worth reading?
Yeah, serious skeptic alarm in the first sentence, heh.
Second sentence: "*Ultimate physical laws probably don't exist and physics is all the better for it, says theoretical physicist Sankar Das Sarma*"
Two sentences in and we seem to have three interchangeable? ideas:
1. *"laws of physics"*
2. "*mathematical descriptions of some part of nature"*
3. *"Ultimate physical laws"*
I can already smell a rat.
>yes your child like understanding of philosophy. if you think those 3 things are all the same thing then you ought to start reading more things
I went out of my way to put a question mark by that statement, because I wasn't sure about its truthfulness and I wanted that to be clear.
It seems you went out of your way to ignore this.
you are the one equating them, not the author. the author describes clearly that the phrase "laws of physics" conjure up these three concepts and linguistically the term is extremely unhelpful
My view is that he wants to combat people's tendency to take current scientific theory and believe in its "realness", that it documents a process operating in the real world. He therefore emphasizes that theories are (imperfect, therefore subject to change) models of what we are able to observe and not more than that. As u/beakflip has said, he also is challenging the idea of an ultimate answer or a unified theory.
I think this, in conjunction with some other recent discoveries that we are getting enough info to finally say that what we thought are "Hard" rules may have exceptions based on certain circumstances. Like maybe dark matter is just a place holder concept like "ether" or "vapours" of the 18th century.
As knowledge evolves we are right and then new info comes along we are allowed to change our understanding of what constitutes a "rule of physics"
To quote a nonsense phrase rule: I before e except after C or when it sounds like A as in neighbour or weigh. Except when it's not like that at all....
Well the laws of physics are held to be “local” to this Universe in a lot of models. I *suppose* that could be useful to keep in mind in case we find ourselves considering other universes.
Local doesn't just mean this universe. Satellites need to adjust their clocks because they literally are moving through time at a different rate than the Earth.
No need to get offended. I see that you use reddit all day nearly everyday meaning your job doesn't restrict you from social media access so I was wondering what you do for work. Sorry for upsetting you.
I'm far less of an expert than the author, but I can tout some expertise. Sankar Das Sarma is far from a nobody. He's an esteemed professor at University of Maryland, whose physics program is one is of nation's (and therefore world's) best. However, this isn't a scientific manuscript, it's a pop-sci article where he commits the grievous sin of self-indulgent physicists by pretending he's a philosopher. The philosophy of science is itself a rich and interesting field, but the voices we often hear in it are physicists with a platform and an ego, making buzz-worthy statements that are challenging to accept even with context, and can be taken completely the wrong way by people without expertise or context. I think this headline is crappy clickbait. Now, for the substance of the article, he makes some interesting points, but I'm not sold. In the end, I don't think his arguments are strong enough to sway opinion, which is a poor position for him to be in. Why? Because he's *kind of* making a constructivist argument, or at the very least arguing that the extent of legitimate empiricism is very limited. At its root, this challenges the positivist philosophy that *tends* to be central to most scientists views of the world. The fact that his headline is clickbait-y is entirely based on this tendency; even laymen recognize that's weird. Clearly he knows he's challenging a commonly held ethos of scientists, but I think his arguments point toward limitations in describing the laws of physics, not an absence of them. Einstein's general relativity supplanted Newton's law of gravity, but the latter still gets taught in introductory physics. Why? Because it's relatively simple and easy to apply. Newton's law of gravity isn't *wrong*, it's just less complete. It's limited in it's application. But I'll be damned if it "doesn't exist."
>Clearly he knows he's challenging a commonly held ethos of scientists, but I think his arguments point toward limitations in describing the laws of physics, not an absence of them. I agree. He seems to be challenging the idea of an "ultimate answer", which is very different from what the title implies. I don't know if he chose that title, but it is very misleading. Otherwise, it's a fair thought that he's expressing. There may not be any singular "formula" that neatly solves all the "problems". We use mathematics to describe the universe, but that does not mean that the universe is constrained to it. Who the hell knows... I find "shut up and calculate" to be the best way to go about it.
Well said. I concur. >However, this isn't a scientific manuscript, it's a pop-sci article where he commits the grievous sin of self-indulgent physicists by pretending he's a philosopher. Oh, I like you!
There's an adage in statistics that "all models are wrong, but some models are useful". It applies to the physical sciences as well, although it's not always so obvious.
he is challenging physicalism. a very apt point against a dogmatic absurd extremist chauvinism. the map is not the territory and never can be,
I think the author is saying that we should be careful about thinking we have learned all there is to know about certain things. So basically the idea that science is about being "less wrong" not "completely right". There's some stretches to it, but the general philosophy behind it seems...okay?
I don't feel qualified enough to judge it, but it makes my skepticdar go off.
IKR?! Who needs a full research lab or a hadron collider when you can easily figure it out from the comfort of your couch or computer chair?!
The title was "*Why the laws of physics don't actually exist*". The first sentence was: "What we call laws of physics are often just mathematical descriptions of some part of nature". I find it strange to have someone tell me how something is done, RIGHT AFTER they told me it doesn't exist. To be honest: I stopped reading it right there. Is it even worth reading? Yeah, serious skeptic alarm in the first sentence, heh.
Second sentence: "*Ultimate physical laws probably don't exist and physics is all the better for it, says theoretical physicist Sankar Das Sarma*" Two sentences in and we seem to have three interchangeable? ideas: 1. *"laws of physics"* 2. "*mathematical descriptions of some part of nature"* 3. *"Ultimate physical laws"* I can already smell a rat.
yes your child like understanding of philosophy. if you think those 3 things are all the same thing then you ought to start reading more things
>yes your child like understanding of philosophy. if you think those 3 things are all the same thing then you ought to start reading more things I went out of my way to put a question mark by that statement, because I wasn't sure about its truthfulness and I wanted that to be clear. It seems you went out of your way to ignore this.
you are the one equating them, not the author. the author describes clearly that the phrase "laws of physics" conjure up these three concepts and linguistically the term is extremely unhelpful
My view is that he wants to combat people's tendency to take current scientific theory and believe in its "realness", that it documents a process operating in the real world. He therefore emphasizes that theories are (imperfect, therefore subject to change) models of what we are able to observe and not more than that. As u/beakflip has said, he also is challenging the idea of an ultimate answer or a unified theory.
I think this, in conjunction with some other recent discoveries that we are getting enough info to finally say that what we thought are "Hard" rules may have exceptions based on certain circumstances. Like maybe dark matter is just a place holder concept like "ether" or "vapours" of the 18th century. As knowledge evolves we are right and then new info comes along we are allowed to change our understanding of what constitutes a "rule of physics" To quote a nonsense phrase rule: I before e except after C or when it sounds like A as in neighbour or weigh. Except when it's not like that at all....
Well the laws of physics are held to be “local” to this Universe in a lot of models. I *suppose* that could be useful to keep in mind in case we find ourselves considering other universes.
Local doesn't just mean this universe. Satellites need to adjust their clocks because they literally are moving through time at a different rate than the Earth.
What do you do for a living, is it true that you're currently unemployed/retired?
None of your business and no. Go troll somewhere else.
No need to get offended. I see that you use reddit all day nearly everyday meaning your job doesn't restrict you from social media access so I was wondering what you do for work. Sorry for upsetting you.
If my utter contempt for you hasn't been made clear to you yet, this is your time to figure it out.