551: Science and atoms...

In my previous lecture I said, that most traditional philosophers of science have taken for granted the assumption that the main goal of science is

. 

reaching comprehensive truth about the world. The goal of explaining natural phenomena is related to the this goal.

.

Today we also take it for granted that mathematics is one of the most important tools of science, that reality is mathematical, that logic is the basis of scientific rationality.

.

And here is another thing in science, that we take for granted. It is a totally sound procedure to analyze matter by taking it apart.

.

So we have molecules and molecules are built of atoms and atoms are structures with a nucleus, protons, neutrons and electrons.

.

But just ask yourself the question: what would make me assume that this stone in my hand is in fact a mass of small particles clustering together?

.

The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old one, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The word "atom", in fact, was coined by ancient Greek philosophers. 

.

Some followers of Plato construed the world to be an imperfect reflection of an underlying reality. A more radical discontinuity was suggested by the atomists Democritus (c. 460 – c. 370 BC) and Leucippus. 

.

For the atomists, the relation between appearance and reality was not the relation between an original and an imperfect copy.

.

Rather, they believed that objects and relations in the “real world” were different in kind from the world we know by means of the senses.

.

What is real, according to the atomists, is the motion of atoms through the void. It is the motions of atoms which cause our perceptual experience of colors, odors, and tastes. 

.

Were there no such motions, there would be no perceptual experience. Moreover, the atoms themselves have only the properties of size, shape, impenetrability, 

.

and motion, and the propensity to enter into various combinations and associations. Unlike macroscopic objects, atoms can be neither penetrated nor subdivided.

.

Several aspects of the atomists’ program have been important in the development of subsequent views of scientific method. 

.

One influential aspect of atomism is the idea that observed changes can be explained by reference to processes occurring at a more elementary level of organization. .

.

This became an item of belief for many natural philosophers in the seventeenth century. That sub-macroscopic interactions cause macroscopic changes was affirmed by Gassendi, Robert Boyle, and Newton, among others around 1600.

.

Maybe for this reason also the microscope was developed in those days. An instrument, that allowed to peek in the micro-world, like the telescope helped to look into the macro-cosmos.

.

Two factors weighed against any widespread acceptance of the classical version of atomism. The first factor was the uncompromising materialism of this philosophy. 

.

By explaining sensation and even thought in terms of the motions of atoms, the atomists challenged man’s self-understanding. 

.

Atomism seemed to leave no place for spiritual values. Surely the values of friendship, courage, and worship cannot be reduced to the concourse of atoms. A classic worry of homo sapiens.

.

Moreover, the atomists left no place in science for considerations of purpose, whether natural or divine.

.

The second factor was that these ideas were founded in philosophical reasoning rather than evidence and experimentation. 

.

And today it is the other way around completely. This early Greek thought has created a world of chemistry, nuclear physics and cell biology and more.

.

Thank you…  the floor is yours … ^_^

.

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The Discussion

[13:16] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Herman

[13:16] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:16] Huntress Selenium: Interesting take on the history of atomism, herman.

[13:16] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:16] herman Bergson: Yes, the main point is that such an idea seems to come out of the blue

[13:17] Bejiita Imako: the word atom mean individable however that have been disproven by experiments

[13:17] Huntress Selenium: I find it interesting that atomic theory was associated with materialism as nowadays, it is used to back up ideas that reality is essentially spiritual--what with the monadic quality of quanta.

[13:17] herman Bergson: or...you could say...discovered by the interacting organism with its environment

[13:17] herman Bergson: With Democritus it was plain materialism....

[13:18] herman Bergson: you also find it in Indian philosophy

[13:18] Huntress Selenium: Neither out of the blue or the interactions of organisms with the environment, but out of the genius of extraordinary minds.

[13:18] Pearce Kingsley: What influence do you think atomism had on twentieth century Process Thought from Whitehead and Hartshorne for instance?

[13:18] herman Bergson: Those minds do not live in a vacuum

[13:18] Huntress Selenium: herman, yes, why the present state of atomic theory is used to justify Indian or Eastern philosophy

[13:19] herman Bergson: I don’t know if we can speak of atomism in the classic sense Pearce....

[13:19] herman Bergson: the main point here is a a more methodological one....

[13:20] herman Bergson: the believe that the road to scientific truth.....and for the Greek , ontological truth leads to the idea of atoms

[13:21] Huntress Selenium: It was an attempt to stop the regress, like Aristotle's First Cause, or Plato's forms.

[13:21] herman Bergson: Like for instance a sense data theory , or  the attempt to find basic statements, which fit into propositional logic

[13:21] herman Bergson: They had to deal with the problem of motion indeed Huntress :-)

[13:21] Pearce Kingsley: I'm thinking of the concept from Whitehead that the only reality is "becoming" rather than anything material.  All material things are artifact, etc.

[13:22] Huntress Selenium: Well, the problem of motion was a subset of the more general problem of a subject for attribution.

[13:22] herman Bergson: That is also an old debate Pearce between Democritus and Parmenides...

[13:22] herman Bergson: what IS? Matter or Change?

[13:23] Huntress Selenium: Motion or change lead to contradictions, they thought, unless you had an underlying reality that didn't move or change; atoms were constantly in motion, even for Democritus.

[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: It fascinates me that theorists have no room for 'grey' areas. Clearly some things merge/co exist/overlap/catalist

[13:24] herman Bergson: Another important point is that in those days from the Greek on till the 17th century all kinds of different ontologies and epistemologies lived happily together

[13:25] herman Bergson: That indeed, Zan, was the next step

[13:25] Huntress Selenium: Uhhhh. well, I suppose, but the Church did close ranks around Augustine, Aquinas, Ptolemy

[13:25] herman Bergson: the idea that science only pursued one goal...truth.....there is no room for grey....not even 50 shades of grey :-)

[13:25] ZANICIA Chau: lol

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: hehehe

[13:26] Huntress Selenium: Heh.  ::thinks of science as a form of BDSM::

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: hahahaha

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ok bend over now all!

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: hahaha

[13:26] ZANICIA Chau: hahaha

[13:26] herman Bergson: ^_^

[13:26] Blackrose Baroque: blushes

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ill inject some higgs bosons

[13:26] herman Bergson: oops...people....mind your language :-)

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: hahaa

[13:26] ZANICIA Chau: hahaha

[13:26] Blackrose Baroque: pff.....i'm too young for this

[13:27] herman Bergson: Sorry Blackrose....

[13:27] Huntress Selenium: Bejiita, hands off my bosons, please!  Thank you very much.

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:27] ZANICIA Chau: hahahaha

[13:27] Pearce Kingsley: Aquinas and Augustine relied heavily on Aristotle for their theologies.

[13:27] herman Bergson: Aquinas did....yes

[13:27] ZANICIA Chau: yes

[13:27] Huntress Selenium: Pearce, not so much Augustine, who relied more on Plato

[13:27] herman Bergson: indeed Huntress

[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: ah yes ture

[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: true I meant

[13:28] Huntress Selenium: But they both tried to solve the problem of substantial form--how being and form, Aristotle's distinctions, could come together as they clearly do in defined objects.

[13:28] herman Bergson: and there you see the difference in approach....

[13:28] Huntress Selenium: It's back to Parmenides, though--how can Being (a plenum) be specified without the annexation of nothingness.

[13:29] Pearce Kingsley: I think Augustine's neo-platonism is much exaggerated.  Esp. with regard to things like transubstantiation.

[13:29] herman Bergson: the aristotelian way is working with ideas...concepts.....the materialists focus on atos are realisty

[13:29] herman Bergson: atoms

[13:29] herman Bergson: and again..in those days it was a kind of open debate...

[13:30] herman Bergson: where materialism wasn’t the popular theory...

[13:30] Huntress Selenium: Well, 'reality' is a little question-begging, isn't it, herman?  You mean 'materiality,' I think

[13:30] herman Bergson: And you see how through history for some reason focuses eventually on specific ideas

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:31] herman Bergson: And here we might follow Kuhn's line of thinking....science as a social process

[13:31] herman Bergson: But that is for future lectures :-))

[13:32] Huntress Selenium: Yes, the sociology of it is important, but to say that therefore there is no objective component to science?

[13:32] Huntress Selenium: That comes under Plato's classic attack--well, since some people don't agree with that, it must, by its own terms, be false.

[13:33] herman Bergson: There is pretty much objective content in science in a pragmatic way at  least....

[13:33] Huntress Selenium: In engineering, yes; but some science, like string theory, is purely theoretical and computer-model based.

[13:33] herman Bergson: And some scientists are hardly interested in the ontological status of their matter at hand

[13:33] herman's eyes: 2014-11-11  [23:33]  herman Bergson

[13:33] herman's eyes: 2014-11-11  [23:33]  herman Bergson

[13:34] Huntress Selenium: Their loss.  lol

[13:34] herman Bergson: the big bang theory is also just a model....

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: true, its not verified by any means, but still a strong theory

[13:34] Pearce Kingsley: as is cognition

[13:35] Huntress Selenium: Well, it does have links to sensory data--like microwave energy seemingly emanating from everywhere.

[13:35] herman Bergson: And in a previous lecture we learnt that computer, c.q. mathematical models arent that mathematical at all

[13:36] Huntress Selenium: yes, they are far from true mathematical models in many cases.

[13:36] Pearce Kingsley: May I ask what c.q. stands for?

[13:36] herman Bergson: casu quo...

[13:36] herman Bergson: i.e.

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:36] Pearce Kingsley: Ah OK.

[13:36] herman Bergson: we use the latin form....doesn’t seem to be international :-)

[13:36] Huntress Selenium: Heh, I thought you had meant to type, .'i.e.'

[13:38] herman Bergson: Anyway, I hope that I could make it clear to you that what we easily take for granted as science is not so obvious as it looks like

[13:38] Huntress Selenium: You do a good job of that, herman

[13:38] ZANICIA Chau: certainly

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: for sure

[13:38] herman Bergson: thank you...

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone APPLAUDS!!!

[13:39] herman Bergson: I guess then you have enough to think about again till next Thursday :-))

[13:39] Blackrose Baroque: thank you Herman, (sorry being late tonight)

[13:39] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ...thank you all

[13:39] Pearce Kingsley: We don't meet this Thursday?

[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Herman

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: nice class herman

[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes we do meet Pearce

[13:40] Huntress Selenium: Thank you, herman

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman ㋡

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: cu soon

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:40] herman Bergson: My pleasure

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: take care bejiita

[13:40] Huntress Selenium: bfn, herman; everyone

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: bye folks

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: Bye everyone

[13:41] Blackrose Baroque: goodnight everyone

[13:41] herman Bergson: Night Blackrose

[13:41] herman Bergson: Sweet dreams :-)

[13:41] Blackrose Baroque: :)

[13:41] 

550: The Rationality of Science...

Concerning The Human Brain Project, which I mentioned in my previous lecture, an open letter was sent on 7th July 2014 to the European Commission by 154 European researchers (currently 595 signatures)

.

 complaining of an overly narrow approach which they claim gives a significant risk that it will fail to meet its goals, and threatening to boycott the project, which means waisting millions of euros of research money.

.

Central to this controversy are changes made by Henry Markram at the Swiss Federal Institute for Technology to sideline cognitive scientists who study high level brain functions, such as thought and behaviour. 

.

Peter Dayan, director of computational neuroscience at University College, London, argues that the goal of a large-scale simulation of the brain is radically premature.

.

We saw that in some sense reality can be mathematical, but when it comes to mathematical models there still are a lot of non computational issues involved.

.

What does this mean for the philosopher of science? What position should he take. It is easy to say, that science is right, but in what sense?

.

Is it possible to unveil the source of scientific rationality? And can this rationality only be defined by formal systems like logic and mathematics?

.

The main stream of traditional philosophy of science starts off with a normative or prescriptive attitude. It seeks rationality in science, i.e, it looks for the logic and reasoning behind scientific acts.

.

Scientific rationality depends on the goals of science. It is therefore the first task of the philosopher of science to uncover these goals.

.

Thus we could find an answer to the question why science is right. If the goals are known, the philosopher can try to answer the question as to whether or not the proposed means for achieving them are appropriate, that is,  rational.

.

Most traditional philosophers of science have taken for granted the assumption that the main goal of science is reaching comprehensive truth about the world. The goal of explaining natural phenomena is related to the this goal.

.

Truth is a property of statements. Therefore, assigning to science the goal of truth means that the task of science is to generate true statements about the world.  

.

Hence, the rules of propositional calculus or predicate calculus, of classical logic, are the natural candidates for showing us how to do good science. 

.

If we see the task of science as generating statements which are highly probable rather than true, then some theory of probabilistic inference will guide us in doing science rationally. 

.

Thus, deductive, inductive or probabilistic inference schemes will be the basis for rational acts in science. This may sound very attractive as an explanation of scientific rationality, but is it the whole story?

.

Is science indeed a truth-seeking system, or does science have other goals too?  If we take declarations of the scientists themselves throughout the history of science, we also learn of other goals.

.

The goal of predicting natural events and phenomena or the goal of advancing technology and mastering nature.

.

A more radical approach is to look for the goals of science in the realm of the subconscious,  to look for collective motives which scientists are not aware of.

.

Scientists declare that they seek comprehensive truth, objectivity, etc., but their real motives may be psychological or social.

.

You could say, for example, that the goal of the scientific community is to arrive at a consensus, rather than truth; this goal of consensus is what distinguishes science from other human activities.

.

You might come to such conclusions, when you read about the motives of the man behind “The Human Brain Project”,  Henry Markram, when he said in an interview with the New York Times, referring to his autistic son, Kai:

.

“You have a child with autism, and you, even being a neuroscientist, have no clue at all about what you could do.”

.

Thank you… ^_^..the floor is yours…

.

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The Discussion

[13:15] paddikin: claps

[13:15] Gemma Cleanslate: that one was tough!!!

[13:15] Gemma Cleanslate: needs more thought

[13:15] herman Bergson: I know Gemma

[13:16] herman Bergson: But the basic idea is...

[13:16] Bejiita Imako: interesting

[13:16] herman Bergson: is science based on some logic rationality or on other things or a mix

[13:17] Qwark Allen: other things can be financial issues

[13:17] Qwark Allen: related with whom is paying the research

[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: and ethical questions also

[13:17] herman Bergson: in other words...what we call science today...it is about truth seeking or just big business....to put it bluntly

[13:17] paddikin: oooooooo

[13:17] paddikin: good

[13:18] Qwark Allen: i think a lot of the time its just a business, nothing l«related with science

[13:18] Qwark Allen: its getting more dogmatic then the church it self

[13:18] paddikin: but we discover things

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: well a a medical person you have to know that science saves a lot of lives

[13:18] science24: a mix is always the best answer even we don't know the reason

[13:19] Qwark Allen: yes true, but then instead of seeking the truth behind the new facts, they just try to fit it in the old paradigm

[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: and makes living more easy for all of us

[13:19] herman Bergson: We do Paddikin ...but we patent it also immediately :-)

[13:19] Lizzy Pleides: and you can earn money with it

[13:19] paddikin:  ~~** lol **~~

[13:19] paddikin: for profit and must have

[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: so it is a mix!!!!

[13:19] paddikin: yes

[13:19] herman Bergson: It is indeed, I think, Gemma...as Science said...

[13:20] paddikin: money and ideas don’t come together often

[13:20] science24: yea, but it's mainly for truth seeking , money is an outcome

[13:20] paddikin: good or evil

[13:20] paddikin: uses

[13:20] Qwark Allen: that was what was supposed to be, seeking the truth, then get the finances

[13:21] paddikin: smiles whose truth

[13:21] herman Bergson: That is an interesting issue to think about.....that science is...or shoudlbe only ....truth-seeking...

[13:21] paddikin: many argue truth so profit is next

[13:21] Qwark Allen: you are not going to prove, the part is financing you, its wrong!

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: wonders if it ever was

[13:21] paddikin: see adds take this and u get well but u got so may side effects OMG!

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: right!!!

[13:22] paddikin: profits

[13:22] science24: bad intention can transform its decent goal

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: but getting to mars is science

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:22] paddikin: yes

[13:22] Qwark Allen: i can give lots examples of this

[13:22] herman Bergson: YEs it is Gemma and a total waist of resources ti is too :-)

[13:23] science24: paper-clip project is one of them

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: not so sure

[13:23] science24: not a waist 100 %

[13:23] herman Bergson: Getting to the moon was a political prestige project...

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: maybe

[13:23] herman Bergson: nothing to find there...what is there  on Mars to find?

[13:24] paddikin: and we wanted it too

[13:24] paddikin: back then

[13:24] paddikin: moon

[13:24] science24: it has its advantages , but they wasn't on purpose

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: that is what we don’t know yet herman what is on mars

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: or if we might need to go there some day

[13:24] paddikin: and at bottom of our oceans too

[13:24] paddikin: same as space

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: to save humankind from extinction

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:24] herman Bergson: we know Gemma...rocks and dust....of some kind....that is all

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: not us

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: would be cool if we could do like start trek someday

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: but great grandchildren

[13:25] science24: they discovered the carbon pucky balls =in space ;)

[13:25] paddikin: smiles

[13:25] science24: another form of carbon nano tubs

[13:25] paddikin: what is life then ???

[13:25] paddikin: breath

[13:25] science24: coincidence as I told you ;)

[13:25] paddikin: heart beat

[13:25] paddikin: ect

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: lots of stuff that we use today in our lives came from exploration preparation for going to the moon

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: interesting

[13:25] herman Bergson: ok...let's get back to science and its rationality :-))

[13:25] science24: not on purpose

[13:25] science24: LOL

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:25] science24: but it is a good thing

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is the question

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: is that kind of exploration rational or not

[13:26] paddikin: yes

[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Gemma...that is always the argument....we profit form the spin offs of those projects :-)

[13:26] paddikin: we human are curtious

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: very curious

[13:27] herman Bergson: But that is a bit silly in my opinion.....

[13:27] paddikin: silly or not that how we are

[13:27] herman Bergson: ok,,,granted....so we go to the moon :-)

[13:27] paddikin: nods

[13:27] herman Bergson: so true paddikin ^_^

[13:28] science24: curiousity is the motivation

[13:28] science24: included but not limited

[13:28] herman Bergson: I guess it is indeed :-)

[13:28] paddikin: and some time we just stumble on stuff no science

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: serendipity

[13:29] herman Bergson: a grave yard of Martians , maybe :-))

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: can curiosity be rational only?

[13:29] paddikin: nope

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: I think so

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: some discoveries are actually mistakes, like vulcanized rubber

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: was forgotten experiment that turned out to be a revolution

[13:29] paddikin: crazy think they rational

[13:30] science24: as the US Kenedy said when they send the first man to the moon , we choose to work on big problems not because it's easy but because it s hard ;)

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: how about cern .. a 17mile tunnel in two countries

[13:30] herman Bergson: No Ciska..don’t think curiosity is a rational quality of homo sapiens...

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: rational??

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: must be

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:30] herman Bergson: it i just a drive of the organism..exploring its environment finding out how to survive

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: as a non scientist I think it all must be rational

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: right

[13:31] herman Bergson: I don’t think so Gemma....

[13:31] science24: CERN is the necleus of the internet you are using now ;)

[13:31] science24: it's not on purpose though

[13:31] science24: is it ?

[13:31] herman Bergson: Take for instance fraude in science...manipulating data....

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: that is bad science

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: yes cern made the ww

[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: BAD

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: www

[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: but

[13:32] herman Bergson: take individual rivalry....and competition among scientists

[13:32] science24: but it was supossed to study particles

[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: there has always been fraud and always will be

[13:32] science24: not WWW

[13:33] science24: you are not sure where you will end up in science

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: arpanet is the structure CERN only made links and web browsers possible

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: the interface we use to use internet

[13:33] science24: you have just to close your eyes and jump in

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: internet itself come from USA

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: correct

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ARPANET

[13:33] herman Bergson: Internet comes from DARPA eventually

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: even though Europe has better internet

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: that we do!!!!

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: and cheaper

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: tsk

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: not rational at all

[13:34] herman Bergsonherman Bergson smiles

[13:34] herman Bergson: I wont say a word to that Gemma :-))

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: no don’t

[13:34] science24: relativly rational ;)

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ticks me off

[13:35] paddikin: hands Gemma a Halloween candy

[13:35] herman Bergson: Welll I guess it is a rational act to thank you all again for your participation today....:-)

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: stale stuff

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:35] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...^_^

[13:35] paddikin: no fresh

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: thank you!

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: ok l

[13:35] paddikin: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:35] paddikin: and all

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: thanx folks

[13:35] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!

[13:35] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T  * ::::::::::

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: awesome

[13:35] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`

[13:35] paddikin: was very interesting

549: Why science is wrong......

You may be surprised about the title of this lecture, because the whole project is named “Why Science is Right”

.

I primarily try to show you the development of the concept of science and the relation between science and reality from a historical perspective.

.

However, we paid some extra attention to the question “Why is reality mathematical” and we saw that according to Pythagoras this is the case indeed.

.

He used numbers as magical-metaphysical entities, which described the structure of the universe, while Aristotle paid more attention to the way we conceptually describe reality.

.

Both approaches existed next to each other in those early days.In fact they are the roots of two lines of thinking since then.

.

On the one hand one assumed that our universe is mathematical and the first instance of this was found in astronomy.

.

And on the other hand one assumed that out conceptual thought processes could be formalized, which was instantiated by the Aristotelian logic..

.

This all related for me to what is happening today. Quintessential in this is the philosophical question of the relation between language and reality.

.

In science it is assumed that language represents reality and this reality is described in the specific languages of symbolic logic and mathematics.

.

Ordinary language is regarded to be an inadequate tool for real scientific description of reality, because it too difficult to reach unambiguous interpretations.

.

Thus we can create a mathematical model of our world or at least of a smal part of our reality. And due to the increased computer power, we may even be inclined to put our faith into these models.

.

But as John Adam of Princeton University says, “the ‘art’ of good modeling relies on (i) a sound understanding and appreciation of the problem…; 

.

(ii) a realistic, but not unnecessarily math­ematical representation of the important phenomena; (iii) finding useful solutions, preferably quantitative ones, 

.

and (iv) interpretation of the math­ematical results—yielding insights, predictions, …, and so on. Sometimes the mathematics used can be very simple…; 

.

indeed, the usefulness of a mathematical model should not be judged by the sophistication of the mathematics, but by its predic­tive capability, among other factors. Mathematical models are not necessarily ‘‘right’’ …”

.

Back to the question how mathematical reality is, we read here terms like “sound understanding”, “realistic representation” and “interpretation of results”.

.

For such actions mathematics is not sufficient. The most recent and painful proof is “The mathematical equation that caused the banks to crash”.

.

The Black-Scholes equation was the mathematical justification for the trading in derivatives, that plunged the world's banks into catastrophe.

.

Here http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/black-scholes-equation-credit-crunch you find an interesting article about this Black-Scholes equation.

.

But what made me wonder even more was what I read in my newspaper a week ago. The article begins like this:

.

“Not far from the Dutch border, in the German town of Jülich, is a special machine. Black columns with thousands of green lights stand in the shed. 

.

I count seven of these columns. The thing uses non-stop energy as many as three thousand households together. 

.

This is JUQUEEN, the second fastest supercomputer in Europe. And soon there is a brain in this supercomputer. Not literally: it is, to be precise, the intention, that it will able to simulate the human brain.

.

Henry Markram, neurobioloog aan de École Polytechnique Fédérale (EPFL) in Swiss Lausanne is the big man behind the project, which will cost hundreds of millions of euros.

.

Will such a computer  and the language, which  is used to activate it, be a proper model of reality. I don’t believe in such a project. Here science is wrong.., ignoring fundamental philosophical questions.

.

Thank you……. ^_^

.

The Discussion

[13:17] ZANICIA Chau: WOW Thank you Harman

[13:17] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you professor!

[13:17] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:18] herman Bergson: If you  have any question or remark...the floor is yours :-)

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: the name Black-Scholes got me wondering, Black holes equation maybee is a more suiting name for it after what happened

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:18] Loo Zeta: The question is when will computers become sentient in the inevitable singularity of human and computing?

[13:19] Lizzy Pleides: I never heard of this project in Jülich

[13:19] herman Bergson: That is the name it got, Bejiita ^_^

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: hehe ok

[13:19] herman Bergson: Is called The Human Brain Project, Lizzy

[13:19] herman Bergson: Brand new.....

[13:19] herman Bergson: and utter nonsense in my opinion.....

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: think ‘ve read something about that, the tricky part is a machine can never think like we can

[13:20] herman Bergson: 500+ scientists have signed a petition not to waste money on it....EU money!

[13:20] ZANICIA Chau: Quite a frightening concept among those who take it seriously

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: a computer is just a machine consisting of billions of electrical switches

[13:20] ZANICIA Chau: on all levels

[13:20] herman Bergson: yes Zan....

[13:20] herman Bergson: Waht I wanted to say today is...

[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: if it is EU money then it doesn't matter, lol

[13:21] herman Bergson: that we can make models of reality and play with them....but they are not reality

[13:21] Loo Zeta: People in computing leadership like... Steve Jobs, Dwight Prowty, and others have 'downloaded' their brains into neural networking already

[13:21] ZANICIA Chau: as we;re doing at the moment

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: it depends on how you will go on at simulating the brain

[13:21] herman Bergson: Fairy tales Loo...

[13:21] herman Bergson: We not even know what the brain is...

[13:21] Loo Zeta: nope I know Dwight

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: no

[13:22] Loo Zeta: he has done it....

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: thats true

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: but i don’t think a computer can feel in any way for example

[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: probably only a human being can understand another human being

[13:22] herman Bergson: No...Loo..he has linked with some machinery and that machinery may have copied something of what happens in the brain...

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: so can u simulate feelings in a good way then?

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: with a machine

[13:23] herman Bergson: But believe me.....uploading to WHAT?? wont bring back his consciousness

[13:23] ZANICIA Chau: I think the truth is that the scientists involved in the project have actually lost sight of reality, as we generally see it

[13:23] Loo Zeta: Well as a lot of them are autistic can we know the difference?

[13:23] herman Bergson: I think so too, Zan...

[13:23] herman Bergson: Just imagine....it works.....

[13:23] herman Bergson: and the computer says....wow I think, so I am!!!

[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: hehehe

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: question is however how do we feel, its all but chemistry and electrical impulses here too

[13:24] herman Bergson: Would switching of the power after w working day be murder?

[13:24] Loo Zeta: /nods

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: but we are analog, computers are digital

[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: laughs*

[13:24] herman Bergson: and switching o the power the next day....are we dealing with the same mind then???

[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: yikes

[13:25] Loo Zeta: ahh we are more than analogue... we are complex biofeedback mechanisms

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: hmm interesting

[13:25] herman Bergson: Does the conscious computer have human rights???

[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: yes Loo

[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Loo we are.....

[13:25] herman Bergson: and a "mind" stored in those things on the picture behind me is not

[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: a computer can only be a copy but never be the original

[13:26] ZANICIA Chau: Hahah imagine a robot with a placard saying....rights for computers. Computers rule!

[13:26] Loo Zeta: :)

[13:26] herman Bergson: But it is going to absorb millions of euros.....which could heave been spent on better research

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: hehehe

[13:26] Loo Zeta: 'we are thus we exist'

[13:27] herman Bergson: We already had HAL in Space Odyssee, Zan ^_^

[13:27] herman Bergson: HAL

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: but thats a sci fi

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: not reality

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a good sci fi though

[13:27] Loo Zeta: closer than you think

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: with a legendary soundtrack

[13:28] Loo Zeta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[13:28] herman Bergson: Artificial Intelligence from the 90 hasn’t brought us what it promised....

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: no

[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: It's only equiv to the waste of pursuing settlements on the moon etc. The world should rally against all this stuff

[13:28] herman Bergson: and now this project

[13:28] Loo Zeta: it isdeveloping explananatory

[13:28] herman Bergson: I agree Zan...

[13:28] Loo Zeta: faster and faster...

[13:29] herman Bergson: you mean exponential, Loo?

[13:29] Loo Zeta: sorry I guess my spelling useless...... and admits I English

[13:29] herman Bergson: np.....we are multi-lingual here ^_^

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: when it comes to experiments like LHC some good knowledge comes out of the thing at least

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: with this mind simulator we don’t even know if it will give any results at all

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: seems to complicated

[13:30] Loo Zeta: Will we be able to pull the plug on it?

[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: nevertheless the idea is interesting. If you copy somebody's brain you can ask the computer after his death what he would have thaught about a matter

[13:30] herman Bergson: No....but they cover their action by claiming to need ten years or so....

[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: creepy thought, Lizzy!

[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: yes Zan

[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes....finally his wife could ask him....did you cheat on me or not......answer or I pull the plug :-)

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: loool

[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: lol

[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: hahahaha

[13:32] Beertje Beaumont: hahahah

[13:32] Lizzy Pleides: ehehe

[13:32] herman Bergson: I think it is utter nonsense....

[13:32] herman Bergson: to begin with...

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but maybe he will just come back again when power restores unless u erase the drive

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: like any other computer program

[13:32] herman Bergson: on a philosophical level we have not even a clue how to understand consciousness

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: interesting thought

[13:33] herman Bergson: Mathematical models of  reality have clear shortcominfgs...

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: I guess so

[13:33] herman Bergson: we don’t need to worry about that....

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: someone first of all have to make the formulas, u can do misscalculation and then formula is worthless

[13:34] herman Bergson: when you begin to see the model as reality, things go simply wrong...

[13:34] herman Bergson: But the mind in the computer idea is beyond common sense...

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: seem far fetched

[13:35] herman Bergson: It is like we also have tried to create life.....

[13:35] herman Bergson: We put all chemical together....create the right environment....

[13:35] Loo Zeta: Vidz .... ie husband contends there is no such thing as common sense

[13:35] ZANICIA Chau: lol

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:36] herman Bergson: Ok Loo, I might agree with you but it is a different chapter :-)

[13:36] Loo Zeta: and after 28 years of marriage I agree he has none

[13:36] ZANICIA Chau: hahahahaha

[13:36] herman Bergson: lol

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: loool

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: lol ㋡

[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: lol

[13:37] herman Bergson: But what I wanted to say is that they even never have been able to create a single LIVING cell....

[13:37] herman Bergson: so how do you think you can create aLIVING brain with computers???

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: thats not going to work

[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: not with computers

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: its a machine ao impossible

[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: probably with cell cultures?

[13:38] herman Bergson: Look at the scheme here.....

[13:38] Loo Zeta: Oh hang on that cell tech thingy not that far off.......

[13:38] herman Bergson: That is what they always say, Loo

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: while life is about chemistry and that is not inside ccomputers

[13:38] herman Bergson: Look at the scheme....

[13:39] herman Bergson: Problem of interest ----> SIMPLIFICATIONS....

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: wwoooow my head spins now

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:39] ZANICIA Chau: They ARE replicating like hell though. Whole organs can be replicated but just for healing. The brain is quite something else

[13:39] Loo Zeta: at the moment computing is wires and electricity.....

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:39] herman Bergson: that kills all 1 to 1 relation with reality

[13:39] Loo Zeta: but.... in the future?

[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Zan....they can do such things....but to begin with ..they need LIVING cells...stem cells

[13:40] herman Bergson: not dead matter

[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: yes

[13:40] Beertje Beaumont: no one can see in the future, maybe we don't need selfthinking computers at all

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: metal silica and electricity can never become alive

[13:41] Loo Zeta: Stem cells can be stored and cultured, I collect them

[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Loo that is what the Artificial Intelligence people always said.....just wait till we have better and faster computers

[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: you kill me, Loo. So funny

[13:41] Loo Zeta: *explains I am a midwife and takes cord samples*

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:42] Loo Zeta: My colleague is a pHD in stem cell research gave it up to look after Mums and babies

[13:43] herman Bergson: II guess the message of today is clear :-))

[13:43] ZANICIA Chau: now that's waste

[13:43] Loo Zeta: He would say 'no'

[13:44] herman Bergson: Who is 'he' and to what statement, Loo? :-)

[13:44] Loo Zeta: Sorry he is a male midwife whom was a stem cell researcher and never regrets changing his job

[13:44] herman Bergson: I see...

[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: that was so interesting! the idea is frightening.... but progress, nonetheless great. ty herman & class!

[13:45] herman Bergson: Guess I have delivered my baby again myself today...again....:-)

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:45] Loo Zeta: :)

[13:45] ZANICIA Chau: hehehe

[13:45] herman Bergson: So thank you all for your participation:-)

[13:45] Loo Zeta: Thanks

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: great class again!

[13:45] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...

[13:45] ZANICIA Chau: Bravo Herman once again

[13:45] Beertje Beaumont: Thank you Herman ㋡

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon again

[[13:45] herman Bergson: Thank you Zan

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: time to let my brain spin down a bit

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: with some nice jazz

[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:46] ZANICIA Chau: Bye everybody

[13:46] Beertje Beaumont: have a goodnight all:) sweat dreams

[13:47] Bejiita Imako: bye

[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: good night everybody!

548: Is reality mathematical....?

In my previous lecture I showed you scientific inquiry slowly moved from conceptual to mathematical. The origin of this move is Pythagoras, who regarded the universe as mathematical.

.

There is mathematics everywhere in science nowadays. Without it there would not be science. We use mathematics, in fact in a rather pragmatic way: it just works.

.

But the question “Why is reality mathematical” kept bothering me. Is it the right question or is it just a silly question? I thought: let’s Google “Why is reality mathematical”.

.

The result was…on one word……exciting. The question showed to be philosophical gold. I am not the only one who is wondering about it.

.

First hit was “Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality”, (2014) is a nonfiction book by Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark. 

.

Written in popular science format, the book interweaves what a New York Times reviewer called "an informative survey of exciting recent developments in astrophysics and quantum theory" with Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, which posits that reality is a mathematical structure.

.

This mathematical nature of the universe, Tegmark argues, has important consequences for the way researchers should approach many questions of physics. So the Pythagorean spirit is still alive.

.

But some critic already raises the question…..”perhaps the most important question about Tegmark’s claim is, Does it matter, except perhaps to those interested in metaphysics? 

.

Most of his assertions can’t be tested, and whether you accept them as true or not seems to make no difference to the future development of physics.” — end quote

.

At least the question keeps thinkers and scientist still busy. Then take this story:

.

When Albert Einstein finally completed his general theory of relativity in 1916, he looked down at the equations and discovered an unexpected message: the universe is expanding.

.

Einstein didn't believe the physical universe could shrink or grow, so he ignored what the equations were telling him. 

.

Thirteen years later, Edwin Hubble found clear evidence of the universe's expansion. Einstein had missed the opportunity to make the most dramatic scientific prediction in history.

.

How did Einstein's equations "know" that the universe was expanding when he did not? If mathematics is nothing more than a language we use to describe the world, an invention of the human brain, how can it possibly churn out anything beyond what we put in?

.

Then we go to the question: “Does Mathematics Reflect Reality?” on the site www.marxist.com and there we read this answer:

.

The content of "pure" mathematics is ultimately derived from the material world. The idea that the truths of mathematics are a special kind of knowledge that is inborn or of divine inspiration does not bear serious examination. 

.

Mathematics deals with the quantitative relations of the real world. Its so-called axioms only appear to be self-evident to us because they are the product of a long period of observation and experience of reality.

.

Unfortunately, this fact seems to be lost on many present-day theoretical mathematicians who delude themselves into thinking that their "pure" subject has nothing to do with the crude world of material things.

.

This is a clear example of the negative consequences of carrying the division of labour to the extreme.

.

From Pythagoras onwards, the most extravagant claims have been made on behalf of mathematics, which has been portrayed as the queen of the sciences, the magic key opening all doors of the universe. 

.

Breaking free from all contact with the physical world, mathematics appeared to soar into the heavens, where it acquired a god-like existence, obeying no rule but its own. 

.

Thus, the great mathematician Henri Poincaré, in the early years of this century, could claim that the laws of science did not relate to the real world at all, but represented arbitrary conventions destined to promote a more convenient and "useful" description of the corresponding phenomena. 

.

Certain theoretical physicists now openly state that the validity of their mathematical models does not depend upon empirical verification, but on the aesthetic qualities of their equations. End of www.marxist.com

.

When sending such a question into the Google Universe and then being rewarded with such an abundance of information is really exciting.

.

It is exciting to read, how justified the question is. Is reality mathematical? If so, how can that be the case? How did we discover this? It looks like a miracle.

. 

Thank you… ^_^

.

One concluding message: Next week we’ll make a short Autumnbreak. Thus we’ll also avoid one week of confusion due to asynchronous changing to daylight saving time in the US and Europe….^_^