The demarcation between philosophy and science is defined by the validation of ideas through experimentation. However, what happens when loopholes are created that allow unsubstantiated thoughts to re-enter science under the guise of scientific rigor? This, in fact, was achieved by scientists like Einstein and has since been embraced by the scientific community. Below are three specific examples of such loopholes. I invite you to comment on them:
- Thought Experiment: Einstein reintroduced a core philosophical concept by renaming it, substituting real experimentation with hypothetical scenarios. This approach has significantly altered the scientific landscape.
- Thought Instrument: Einstein also introduced the idea of the "thought instrument," exemplified by constructs like the "light clock" and the "graphene-thick windowless laboratory (GTWL)," to support his thought experiments.
- Handicapped Experimentation: The most striking loophole was the deliberate exclusion of key observations in experiments, which allowed for experimentation within the confines of the GTWL. This last loophole is the hardest to detect but becomes obvious once revealed. Imagine being given two identical bottles containing two transparent liquids. You're told that no experiment can differentiate between the two liquids. However, when informed that one smells like white vinegar and the other does not, you're instructed not to use your sense of smell in the experiment. This is similar to the rationale given to justify the "equivalence principle" and, subsequently, general relativity.
For more on the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science, please refer to the attached presentation materials.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
Dear António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Please note that science has also been referred to as natural philosophy. The two fields often converge on topics such as the origin of the universe, where even religion joins the discussion. For example, Lawrence Krauss concluded that the universe emerged from nothing, while the Church claims that God created the world out of nothing—each using its own terminology1. In the past, we also had alchemy, where people attempted to turn base metals into precious ones. While this is a scientific endeavour, past philosophers and some religious leaders also tried their luck with it.
Modern science began when philosophers and scientists realized the need to prove their ideas through experimentation. This realization established the boundary between pure philosophy and science.
My argument is that some scientists have attempted to blur this boundary, creating loopholes that revert back to pure philosophy by proving their ideas through pure logic or “thought experiments,” as it's called today. One such loophole, which I refer to as “handicapped experimentation,” is particularly damaging, as it gives the illusion of experimentation while ignoring key observations—like conducting an experiment with one's eyes closed. Simply put, I want to ensure that science is conducted properly.
1- Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 2 -The Issue of Existence
Dear António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Handicapped experimentation is not historic or something that happened in the long past; it remains a norm and foundation in relativistic physics. This applies to both "thought experiment" and "thought-based instrument".
These two latter loopholes are well known and are proudly taught in relativity courses. By raising this discussion, I aim to highlight the very damaging practice of "handicapped experimentation."
AI is offering a "Lens" into Quantum Computing, where the mechanics of understanding will take place through Regulated-Simulation; here, in a VR World most likely, the Globe's Metadata can resonate through Chambers (Manifolds & Solitons Manipulated in RT for QuestionAnswers, for example)
#GAIA User-GROUP SLA (Smart City)
#ERES VERTECA PlayNAC (COI)
#CyberRAVE EarnedPath GiantERP (Migration Planning)
... leading to Energy Resolution (Earth Changes)
i believe #216 #1269 #72
Dear António José Rodrigues Rebelo
I truly appreciate your comments. However, as indicated by the title and my initial comment, I was expecting feedback from scientists with a background in physics. Unfortunately, it seems that there is little eagerness to defend these pointed criticism. As you know, those actively working in the field are often too busy to engage with questions like this on RG.
My hope is that students come across these discussions and are encouraged not to accept what is taught under the label of science without critical thinking.
Warm regards
Ziaedin Shafiei ,
it is not a bad thing to conceive thought experiments, but I agree with you, it is a back door for pseudoscience if these are not followed by experiments or cannot be realistically corroborated by experiments hence they are not falsifiable.
A thought experiment could be in principle used to single out something.
The two thought experiments Einstein proposed:
LIGHT CLOCK and EINSTEIN'S TRAIN
can easily be used to disqualify what they were meant to support.
Light clocks shows the physical untenability of the Lorentz Transformations which compel light to change direction in order to comply with the equivalence of inertial frames. The paradox that a source in motion in a isotropic frame will not be able to strike the same point as the same source at rest in that frame.
Concerning Einstein's train embnakment thought experiment, at first sight, through a superficial analysis, one can arrive at Einstien's conclusion : that simultaneity is relative. if it is carefully analyzed, without a bias, it shows exactly the opposite...
Dear Stefano Quattrini
Thank you for confirming that light clock is a farce. I highlighted this loophole as "thought instrument" in a few files on RG around 2107 such as:
Preprint Is Time Dilation a scientific theory?
There might be one more loophole from physics to metaphysics. Einstein had an additional tool: he relied on the contrast between appearance and reality to complicate the issue. For example, we now know the Sun is not a disk about half a meter in diameter as it appears. So, it would be absurd to develop a new theory in physics based solely on the contrast between the Sun’s appearance and its reality. The concept of simultaneity is similar. Einstein used the contrast between appearance and reality to convincingly build relativity theory.
I hope I’m being correct and clear. I’m working on this loophole and will add it to this discussion and the following file once I am certain about it and can express it more clearly and concisely.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
Loopholes from physics to metaphysics refer to gaps or ambiguities in scientific understanding that invite philosophical interpretation. Examples include:
These loopholes highlight the interplay between scientific inquiry and philosophical speculation, suggesting that our understanding of reality may extend beyond empirical evidence.
Dear Chuck A Arize
CAA "our understanding of reality may extend beyond empirical evidence."
I agree with your valued comment, except for the quote above. I believe our established understanding of reality should not be allowed to extend without empirical validation. Philosophical reasoning is merely the first step in our exploration of reality and should not be mistaken for the complete scientific process.
I refer to such unproven reasoning as the "god-of-the-gaps" of modern science, which should be entirely separated from science fact.
For a more detailed argument, please see:
Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?
Dear Stefano Quattrini
SQ "Light clocks shows the physical untenability of the Lorentz Transformations"
It is well known that Minkowski spacetime is simply a geometrical representation of the Lorentz transformation equations, which raises questions about the physical viability of spacetime theory.
I would appreciate it if you could also comment on the appearance vs. reality issue I raised in my previous comment, if possible.
Dear Ziaedin Shafiei ,
The image shows the untenabilty of Einstein's light clock.
The beam would end in the lab tilted in its trajectory when it was emitted straight.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_experiment_performed_in_a_Lab_tested_the_tilting_of_light_emitted_by_a_moving_source_the_foundation_of_Einsteins_light_clock
- Badges
- Science topic