I was watching yesterday this Piers Morgan interview and heated debate between Eric Weinstein vs Sean Carroll:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m7LnLgvMnM
In my opinion, the cause of the intellectual conflict of the conventional physicists (on the left) with many others that not agree (on the right) is deeply philosophical . It is the difference between epistemology and ontology.
The first describes accurately results and outcomes of phenomena and experiments using an effective model (i.e. can be no realistic nor physical) that however processes involved may be disconnected from physical reality and the second philosophical ideology is concerned with the discovery of what actually these physical processes are that lead to these results and outcomes.
The problem is that the second school of scientific thinking is very hard to do especially in quantum physics and most of "conventional" physicists have abandon it in the last 150 years or so. However, predicting the results without knowing what really is going on in the process of a phenomenon is actually missing or wrong information that can make science hitting an intellectual wall that does not permit you to investigate further for new physics or even predict results.
This is pretty much the situation today in physics I believe. Our urge to be able to predict the outcomes of physical phenomena without really deeply understanding the physics behind it and the causes, make Physic's research today a giant with fragile wooden legs and foundation.
Ideally, we should revisit the old school of physics where finding out the mechanics and cause is more important for our understanding of the physical world than predicting results and outcomes of physical phenomena using effective models?
It is analogue of saying that a giant red dragon came and broke the glass window. I don't care if the this dragon is real as long as I have predicted correctly the outcome, thus the breaking of the window.
Note: Image made with Grok.com XAI
"Is epistemology responsible for hitting a brick wall in discovering new physics today"? - Yes, Exactly so! Modern epistemology (devoid of ontology) in both science and philosophy, is based on British empiricism and is nothing but Kantian Subjective Idealism in its present form; based on brain-cooked logical/mathematical categories of the sense-perceived "phenomena", while the "noumena" (ontology) remains a perpetual mystery of the "unknowable thing-in-itself" (Newtonian-Einsteinian theoretical physics and cosmology (i.e., Metaphysics)) or the crass positivism of Bishop Berkeley's "esse est percipi, or to be is to be perceived" (i.e., Copenhagen Metaphysics) after the recognition of the "Evil Quanta"! Both depend on the "First Impulse" (gift) of God for matter, motion, life etc. ( i.e.ontology)! Only materialist dialectics and in its present form of "quantum dialectics" (dealing with both ontology and epistemology), can claim to be truly scientific!
Frederick Engels correctly described British empiricism in the following way: "It is the old story. First of all, one makes sensuous things into abstractions and then one wants to know them through, the senses, to see time and smell space. The empiricist becomes so steeped in the habit of empirical experience, that he believes that he is still in the field of sensuous experience when he is operating with abstractions. We know what an hour is, or a metre, but not what time and space are! As if time was anything other than just hours, and space anything but just cubic metres! The two forms of existence of matter are naturally nothing without matter, empty concepts, abstractions which exist only in our minds. But, of course, we are supposed not to know what matter and motion are! Of course not, for matter as such and motion as such have not yet been seen or otherwise experienced by anyone, only the various existing material things and forms of motions. Matter is nothing but the totality of material things from which this concept is abstracted and motion as such nothing but the totality of all sensuously perceptible forms of motion; words like matter and motion are nothing but abbreviations in which we comprehend many different sensuous perceptible things according to their common properties. Hence matter and motion can be known in no other way than by investigation of the separate material things and forms of motion, and by knowing these, we also pro tanto know matter and motion as such. Consequently, in saying that we do not know what time, space, matter, motion, cause and effect are, Nägeli merely says that first of all we make abstractions of the real world through our minds, and then can not know these self-made abstractions because they are creations of thought and not sensuous objects, while all knowing is sensuous measurement! This is just like the difficulty mentioned by Hegel; we can eat cherries and plums, but not fruit, because no one has so far eaten fruit as such".
The following copy of a recent comment in RG may be helpful to understand what is meant by "Metaphysics" and "Quantum Dialectics" in the comment above:
[Abdul Malek added an answer : Wolfgang Konle> “Sorry Abdul, but with your "wrong philosophy" approach, with which you are trying to discredit physics and even all natural sciences with it, you are only strengthen physics as it is”.
Your comment reflects a typically shallow understanding of the sciences of physics and philosophy; by official and mainstream “physicists” with metaphysical orientation. I have spent some time to prepare the following response; without any expectation that it will resonate with you and most probably a waste of my time! Do or did you really read and understand my criticism of official and mainstream physics (including cosmology) and the alternative I am proposing in my publications and comments in RG? Dialectics requires some serious reflection, contemplation, introspection, retrospection and most of all brilliant speculation etc., which official science and most “physicists” consider as “philosophy” and disparages at every turn and opts for mostly instinctive Metaphysical methods, of abstract, deterministic, mechanical, etc., mathematics/geometry as the pinnacle of “science”!
Historically and from a dialectical perspective, what is known as “physics” has the following major defects and limitations:
1. What is generally known as physics and particularly the one coming down from Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein is NOT physics in real sense of the term, but as Hegel correctly called, is Metaphysics (as opposed to Dialectics), because it falsely assumes the world and its objects as given as they are; controlled by mysterious subjective forces (Gods) and/or are Kantian “unknowable things-in-themselves”. As a result, it deals only with epistemology (no ontology) and uses “Picture Thought” or ordinary thought of objective reality and comprehends only the partial, distorted or mystified reality. In essence, it continues the primitive and ordinary mode of thought (immediate Cause/Effect - as world-view); that evolved during the natural evolution of man and society. It is a sabotage of REAL physics of Kepler, Brahe, Leibniz and Hegel. KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas: https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106
2. Metaphysics (Thought in general) is a reflection (an abstract Picture) of the objective/material world in human brain, gained through sense perception. It is in essence also a negation (abstraction) of material reality and necessarily gives a crude, hazy, mystified and distorted “understanding” (only limited positive knowledge) of material reality. Because of its idealist orientation, it cannot appreciate the fact that “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness”. As a consequence, Metaphysics always depends on the individualist thoughts of Sages, great men, prophets, theorists etc., for guidance. It does not realize that the world is a manifestation of objective and natural forces and not of the myths, theories, fantasies etc., created by the great men and prophets! “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
3. Metaphysics considers its crude and defective “Picture Thought” gained through sense perceptions correctly describes reality as it is; but does not realize that men can gain positive knowledge of reality only through directly living, subjective and empirical interaction with objective Nature; through social/historical practice; technology etc., that requires both conscious or unconscious changing of both man and objective Nature. In fact, man separated himself from the animal kingdom, evolved his physical posture and brain and gained progressive mastery over Nature through his subjective labour acting on Nature!
4. Metaphysics does not consider “contradiction” as the most fundamental aspect of objective reality and “Negation” as an important aspect of the development of matter and motion in the universe, Nature, Society and Thought; mediated by chance and necessity.
In short modern Newtonian-Einsteinian theoretical physics and cosmology is nothing but Metaphysics; which is mostly guided by the continuation of instinctive perception and mystical orientation of primitive men – a world-view forced and fostered by the successive ruling classes of history for their narrow class interest; with minor successive changes needed for particular epochs of human history.
Materialist dialectics ameliorates these limitations of Metaphysics, considers both aspects of ontology and epistemology and refines the (epistemological) “Picture Thought” of Metaphysics through “Thinking Thought”; which clarifies, exalts, negates and enlighten the mere “understanding” of “Picture Thought” to notions of “Thinking Thought” and positive knowledge – the only REAL Science! Hegel differentiated the two world views in the following way, “But it is one of the fundamental prejudices of logic as hitherto understood and of ordinary thinking that contradiction is not so characteristically essential and immanent a determination as identity; but in fact, if it were a question of grading the two determinations and they had to be kept separate, then contradiction would have to be taken as the profounder determination and more characteristic of essence. For, as against contradiction, identity is merely the determination of the simple immediate, of dead being; but contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity”.]
Lack of clear advances seems to be driving the impatient over
the edge, in so many ways.... It usually means only i know.
This reminds me of sculpted dinosaurus coming out of building wall in the Phoenix: The Arizona Museum of Natural History Project: https://dimin.com/assets/images/processed/NoCrop_2560x2560/874-arizona-museum-of-natural-history.jpg
You may access the image there.
A Possible point of departure for "new physics today"?!!
[Review Discussion in SCISPACE:
https://scispace.com/en/
https://scispace.com/papers/new-physics-the-negation-of-einsteins-theories-of-relativity-10bmr431gf
New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity
Abdul Malek - 06 Mar 2024
- Journal of Advances in Physics
Understanding the Abstract of the Paper
The abstract of the paper presents a new perspective on the relationship between mass, energy, and velocity, challenging established theories of relativity. Here are the key points:
New Perspective: The paper introduces a revolutionary approach called Quantum Dialectics (QD), which is based on quantum dynamical-materialist dialectics. This perspective aims to redefine the understanding of space, time, matter, and motion in physics [1].
Mass-Energy-Velocity Relation: It proposes a new quantitative relation for fundamental particles, suggesting that the mass (m) of any free fundamental particle is inversely related to the cube of its velocity (v). This contrasts with the classical mechanics (CM) approach, which has been dominant since Newton and Einstein [1].
Contradiction to Relativity: The new relation aligns with recent experimental findings, such as the observation that high-energy gamma photons from a distant galaxy arrived later than lower-energy photons, despite being emitted simultaneously. This contradicts Einstein's theory, which posits that all photons travel at the same speed (c) [1].
Philosophical Underpinnings: The QD approach views matter and antimatter as part of an eternal quantum process of existence and non-existence, emphasizing the dynamic nature of reality. It suggests that existence is inherently contradictory and subject to change, evolution, and development [1].
Critique of Classical Mechanics: The abstract critiques the CM approach for its reliance on metaphysical assumptions, such as the idea of a finite universe created by God and the conservation laws that stem from it. It argues that these assumptions have led to confusion and unphysical concepts in scientific discourse [1].
In summary, the abstract outlines a significant shift in understanding fundamental physics, proposing a new framework that challenges long-standing theories and emphasizes the dynamic and contradictory nature of existence.......
Practical Implications of the Paper
The paper presents a new framework that could have several practical implications in various fields of physics and technology. Here are the key points:
Revising Fundamental Physics: The introduction of Quantum Dialectics (QD) challenges established theories of relativity, suggesting that current models may need to be revised. This could lead to new theoretical developments in physics, potentially influencing how we understand fundamental forces and particles in the universe [1].
Impact on Particle Physics: The new mass-energy-velocity relation proposed in the paper could have implications for particle physics experiments. If validated, it may change how physicists approach the study of fundamental particles, including their interactions and behaviors under different conditions. This could lead to new discoveries in high-energy physics and cosmology [1].
Technological Advancements: Understanding the dynamics of mass and energy at a fundamental level could lead to advancements in technology, particularly in fields like quantum computing and materials science. For instance, insights from QD could inform the development of new materials with unique properties or enhance the efficiency of energy transfer systems [1].
Reevaluation of Experimental Results: The paper's critique of the relativistic framework, especially regarding the behavior of photons, suggests that existing experimental results may need to be reevaluated. This could lead to new experimental designs and methodologies that better align with the proposed QD framework, potentially uncovering new phenomena [1].
Philosophical and Conceptual Shifts: The philosophical implications of the QD perspective may influence how scientists and philosophers approach the nature of reality, existence, and the universe. This could foster interdisciplinary discussions that bridge physics, philosophy, and even metaphysics, leading to a richer understanding of existence and the universe's workings [1].
In summary, the practical implications of this paper could extend from theoretical advancements in physics to technological innovations and philosophical discussions, potentially reshaping our understanding of the universe and its fundamental principles.]
Please Note: The evaluation of the article was posted as a comment in the linked website; but as usual was later deleted (like any other favourable review of Malek's publications posted in the Internet) by the thugs of official science in collaboration with the Tech-Giants!
I agree with Juan Weisz that 'Lack of clear advances seems to be driving the impatient over
the edge, in so many ways.... It usually means only i know.'
As if 'Time' and the notion of 'progress', can in any way be applied to the understanding of True Knowledge ... so can it be that the impatient can also be recognized as ignorant??
Ann Van Ryn
Ann Van Ryn > “As if 'Time' and the notion of 'progress', can in any way be applied to the understanding of True Knowledge ..”
This in general is true, specially about the ruling ideas of class societies of the past history and particularly on the notion of cosmology. God-created world is the age-old theory and even masquerading as “True Knowledge ..”, since Isaac Newton. And by the 20thcentury elevated to an “Absolute Truth” with the bonus “experimental/observational proofs” to boot; since Albert Einstein. But this cosmology, which is the preoccupation of modern theoretical physics is nothing but metaphysics and is absolutely false! A correct (beginning) of positive or true knowledge was (politically) thwarted since Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe and Leibniz’s dialectical approach and by now totally is obliterated. "KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...
For Hegel, “Truth in philosophy means that concepts and external reality corresponds”. The “external reality since the early Greek dialectics is that Matter (harbouring life and consciousness) is in eternal Motion. So, Truth (positive knowledge) is only possible through correct concept (theoretical mastery) of social/historical practice, technology etc., of matter in motion.
But for official theoretical physics (i.e., Metaphysics) since at least Newton, Matter and Motion are mysteries given by a “First Impulse” from God or does not exist according to Einstein, “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
The following is what Frederick Engels (1820 – 1895) wrote in the “Introduction” of his book “Dialectics of Nature” about (pre-quantum) theoretical physics and this remains true till today: “High as the natural science of the first half of the eighteenth century stood above Greek antiquity in knowledge (information, A.M.) and even in the sifting of its material, it stood just as deeply below Greek antiquity in the theoretical mastery of this material, in the general outlook on nature. For the Greek philosophers the world was essentially something that had emerged from chaos, something that had developed, that had come into being. For the natural scientists of the period that we are dealing with it was something ossified, something immutable, and for most of them something that had been created at one stroke. Science was still deeply enmeshed in theology. Every where it sought and found the ultimate cause in an impulse from outside that was not to be explained from nature itself. Even if attraction, by Newton pompously baptised as “universal gravitation”, was conceived as an essential property of matter, whence comes the unexplained tangential force which first gives rise to the orbits of the planets?”
Even far more sophisticated (than what is being presented in RG forums) but equally toothless metaphysics and scholasticism thinks that “changing paradigms of astrophysics and cosmology” is necessary to achieve revolutionary insight into the mechanics of the universe”.
https://demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025
Thank you Mr Abdul Malek your firm stance demonstrates the contemporary, progressive basis underpinning it.
On the contrary to 'change' the paradigms of astrophysics and cosmology is an impossibility that no metaphysician would consider ... it is to attempt to explain the greater through the lesser ...
Surely it is best to remain open ... from that point we stand to learn that which we do not know.
Thank you again
Ann Van Ryn
I think that dichotomy isn‘t as dramatic as it‘s made out to be if we consider that theoretical, unobservable entities may very well be defined by their causal powers. To paraphrase Quine: to exist means to be part of the ontology of (one of our) best theories. Dragons and the like just don‘t happen to be among them.
Ann Van Ryn "On the contrary to 'change' the paradigms of astrophysics and cosmology is an impossibility that no metaphysician would consider ... it is to attempt to explain the greater through the lesser ..."
Unfortunately, I think that this is a pessimistic stand and a defeatist stance, promoted and fostered by monopoly capitalism and theology of modern times as an important part of their reactionary ruling idea. If the "noumena" (ontology) according to Kant (the modern metaphysicists and even the theoretical physicists led by Albert Einstein) is a mystery of "unknowable thing-in-itself"; then what is the point of trying to learn anything about it at all, in the first place! And how one can possibly say it is "unknowable", without at least "knowing" even if a little about it! The "unknowable thing-in-itself" (a mystery) - of the mighty thinker and logician Kant; and the intellectual pabulum of modern theoretical natural and philosophical sciences seems to be anything but logical! It is self-contradictory!! Kant even also said, ”I found it necessary deny knowledge to make room for faith!” In fact, Fichte, Schelling, Schopenhauer, Hegel – the offspring of Kantian philosophy rejected the Master’s “thing-in-itself” and his warning to philosophy to abate its claim to any knowledge of objective reality – the noumena! It may be admitted that man’s knowledge of the world will always be incomplete; but it does not mean that man should not try to know the world as much as possible; as a historical process and subjectively "change" himself and the condition of his existence for enhanced "freedom of the will". Human thought has the potential to gain knowledge about any material existence; including the infinite universe! “The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science”. Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...
It fell on Hegel to restore the honour of philosophy as the science of all sciences, the soul of all knowledge, by pulling it out of its intractable problems and the lowest moment it reached by the time of Kant. Hegel unambiguously rejected the law of non-contradiction and “ex nihilo nihil fit” of theology, old idealism, rationalism and classical materialism; the “excluded middle” of Aristotle and the thing-in-itself of Kant. For Hegel absolutely everything depends on “the identity of identity and non-identity.” Opposites reside together in the very element of a thing or a process in simultaneous unity and opposition to each other and a resolution of this logical contradiction and conflict provides the dynamics for change, motion, evolution, development etc., in the universe. This revolutionary world-view – a reincarnation of Heraclitus; Hegel put at the heart of his new philosophical system – the dialectical method. For Hegel, “Truth in philosophy means that concepts and external reality corresponds”.
Frederick Engels elaborated Hegel’s dialectical perspective on knowledge in the following way, “The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.
Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker. ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring)
I apologize for my lack of clarity as I oppose both ...
'monopoly capitalism and theology of modern times' and the very thought that either could be 'an important part of their reactionary ruling idea.
I will leave it at that, thank you.
Dr Ann Van Ryn
Ann Van Ryn : My comments addressed to you were in response to yours. These were also meant/addressed to the others following this forum! I do realize that your personal opinion is important for you. Thanks for this dialogue!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction