-For problem soving feature of the empirical science, see Popper's life-works and publications. The same hold for his demarcation of 'true' science and 'pseudo' science (apparently: metaphysics).
-However, metaphysics regards the 1st person science (see Heinz Pagels ,Perfect Symmetry, pp. 361 ff.). Why should the 1st person science be discarded for the sake of solving the 'factual' problems?
Why are assumptions and presuppositions, (shortly: metaphysics) prejudgedly not worth inquiring?
-Thanks for your answer(s)! Marc.
Thank you, Wulf for the book by prof. Brigitte Falkenburg. I am going to read it. Why does she not write "Wave Metaphysics..,? (Remember my previous question: What if singularity is wave?). Why only undertones? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is surely a philosophical one! However underexplored! Anyhow, thanks for your tip. Marc.
Thank you again, Wulf, for the links. I am going to read both links. Marc.
I think that some topics in physics are hijacked by the philosophy department, often misrepresented, and then passed off as metaphysics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is one great example, as is relativity theory in general.
Physics studies effects that have to be measurable and verifiable. Physics cannot stop at just the initial hypothesis. It's not enough to develop a well-written hypothesis that seems logical and bounded, and call it fact. Or to use that explanation to state flatly why certain personal realities might manifest.
Something similar to this occurs with traditional Chinese medicine. It's great that western medicine continues to explore other techniques, but it's not to say that all of it must be accepted. For example, if traditional Chinese medicine assigns individual emotions to a body organ, for example the liver is associated with anger and the heart is associated with joy, medicine and physics, and science in general, cannot just accept. Metaphysics can.
Dear Wulf and Albert,
-Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' is surely philosophical: it is based on measurement, and measurement is surely limited! That is the why of its being philosophical.
-I would like to add: it is even theological! If you ask: What is the nature and origin of this limitedness? Thanks both of you for the answers! Marc.
Thanks Wulf for your admiration, comments, and link.
-My question to you (again): why should one exclude philosophical (or even theological) 'meaning' in science like QM? And downgrade it only to 'undertones' (see my previous added answer, you never answered/or my other question: What if singularity is wave?).
-QM absolutely not "based on measurement"?
-Is 'a' high-powered microscope used by Heisenberg not limited? That is the why of my 'philosophical' (and 'theological') understanding.
-After all, what does (your) 'meaning' stand for: 'intension' (in Fregean sense)? But my dear, all objective knowledge (to which QM belongs) is 'extensional'! (still in Fregean sense): it is 'naming' (not 'meaning').
Thanks, Marc.
Very much thanks, Wulf, for your minutes in answering my question. My quote of Frege is on account of (i) your own use the concept/word/term of 'meaning'; (ii) logic of 'extension' is an important factor in set theory, the backbone of mathematics and accordingly of physics (at least mathematical physics); (iii) you are free to step over to Wittgenstein or Husserl.
That said, once again: thanks for your minutes! Marc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications