Why would you do that? Here is wikipedia’s definition, just for a frame of reference.
& a dictionary definition
& another thread where I quoted Rothbard’s Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences at length.
The Rothbard quote is besides the point, as AJ pointed out in his original post.
And the math I studied and that’s in all the advanced texbooks is exactly as AJ defined it.
It is more accurate to say physics is hypothetical deductive. We do not know the ultimate first causes behind physical phenomena, so physicists hypothesize as to what they are. As true premises can only lead to true conclusions, if the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis can be shown to be false, then the hypothesis must also be false.
Azure is correct. Physics is hypothetical deductive because it is about researching data outside the mind, meaning, it is not known for certain what ultimate causes are of the things that exist in the complex world. There are too many variables to point out the ultimate cause. There are correlations but not causation. Human action knows causation because we are able to self-reflect upon individual selves and come to understand that doing this ends up being this. Cause-effect. We can come to know this for certain.
It can be thought this way, which in no way counters what Azure said here. It is logically deducted what is impossible. It is impossible to do this experiment. Not because of lack of money, etc… But because it can’t be done and never can be done. So the experimenter does what is possible, ie. that’s a hypothetical. If it works, then it has been verified or nothing has been able to falsify the experiment, meaning, it works. But that is only based on what is possible. Logically what is possible doesn’t negate other possibilities. So the experiments keep going and other possibilities to add onto the first possible that worked supports the hypothesis and expands the hypothesis. Yet these experiments are always possibilities. They are not axiomatic because in the sense of human action, because what is known about the external world is always based on that initial assumption that is a possibility. When an experimenter starts experimenting they only start from knowing in certain that ‘this is impossible’ so I’m going to try what is possible.
How much physics have you actually studied?
What? You people can’t be serious. If I define “cat” as “thing with paws” I can make it mean “dog” too. Care to link me something on the internet that defines math that way? It sounds like you are trying to put the whole of deduction under math.
I’ve never heard it put better than that. I’m a layman it made sense to me.
some, but this is a logical issue. It’s not necessary for me to understand physics to know how concepts are derived from physics. Could you please point out what I had said that you disagree with please. Also, take note of the individual that made a long post who is studying physics at very high levels and what I’m saying is completely in line with his post.
Now you mention it, that’s 100% correct. Logic was a real mess until about 150 years ago when Mathematicians took it over and stunned the world. Oddly enough, Bertrand Russel wrote that the moment they did that was also the moment Math became truly math IIRC.
Interestingly, Logic and Math are linked together like the twin strands in a dna molecule. Since Godel, Matehmaticians realized that Math is studied using the rules of verbal logic. And at the same time, they study Logic as a branch of Math.
Well since you asked so nicely:
Azure is correct.
This^^ She wrote “We do not know the ultimate first causes behind physical phenomena, so physicists hypothesize as to what they are.”
I am taking as a definition of Physics "that which is studied by physicists." In practice they don’t bother at all about ultimnate causes, or any causes at all. They are only interested in predicting things, and of course in describing what they see. Frinstance they might say “If you let go of a ball. it will fall to the ground.” That’s it. They don’t bother with why it will fall. No ultimate first causes, nothing. That’s why Azure is in error.
Having taken on this very limited task, predicting things, they found that it’s not that easy to predict things. Along came Newton and with one stroke of genius said. “OK let’s do it this way. Assume three axioms [and he listed them]. Now go figure out, using the laws of logic [of which Math is a very developed part], the consequences. Those consequences are what you can predict.”
That’s why Stephen is right.
Given the above, I hope you can see how the rest of your post is not neccesarily wrong, but besides the point.
I am familiar with the post you linked to, and I’m sure that educated poster will agree with Stephen and me. Nothing he says there is relevant to this discussion, so that what you are saying and what I am saying [although they can’t both be right] are completly in line with his post.
There are too many variables to point out the ultimate cause. There are correlations but not causation. Human action knows causation because we are able to self-reflect upon individual selves and come to understand that doing this ends up being this. Cause-effect. We can come to know this for certain.
It can be thought this way, which in no way counters what Azure said here. It is logically deducted what is impossible. It is impossible to do this experiment. Not because of lack of money, etc… But because it can’t be done and never can be done. So the experimenter does what is possible, ie. that’s a hypothetical. If it works, then it has been verified or nothing has been able to falsify the experiment, meaning, it works. But that is only based on what is possible. Logically what is possible doesn’t negate other possibilities. So the experiments keep going and other possibilities to add onto the first possible that worked supports the hypothesis and expands the hypothesis. Yet these experiments are always possibilities. They are not axiomatic because in the sense of human action, because what is known about the external world is always based on that initial assumption that is a possibility. When an experimenter starts experimenting they only start from knowing in certain that ‘this is impossible’ so I’m going to try what is possible.
To predict something, doesn’t that mean that you know the cause and effect? You predict this happens so this will therefore happen?
maybe you’re right. I’ll let Azure explain him or her self. I think I may have misread. You’re pointing out that first causes are not what physicists hypothesize about because that’s not their area of study. Let me test this by asking do you except that human action is a first cause/principle?
If you know the the cause and effect that will certainly let you predict. But modern scirence has thrown cause and effect out the window [and relies on other methods to predict]. For one thing, it is a deep deep q, what “causes” something. For another they found it isn’t needed to predict. All they needed was to discover “laws”, the reasons for which we need not bother with.
For example, the law is “if you let go of a ball it will fall to the ground.” How does letting go “cause” it to fall? Answer: Who cares. Once you know that law, you can predict. Also, as already mentioned, figuring out “causes” and "why"s is incredibly difficult.
How can they discover “laws” if they dont know causes? The only method they use is if something happens over and over and over, assume its a law until you find out otherwise. Obviously this is a pretty lame method. After all, just because it happened many times, what makes you think it will happen again? But it’s the only thing they have, and so far so good.
I plead ignorance.
Smiling Dave,
It seems we might be talking past each other:
“What makes these axioms self-evident? Kant answers, it
is not because they are evident in a psychological sense, in
which case we would be immediately aware of them. On the
contrary, Kant insists, it is usually much more painstaking
to discover such axioms than it is to discover some empirical
truth such as that the leaves of trees are green. They are
self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without
self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one
would actually, implicitlly admit their truth.” - Hoppe
The axioms of human nature are qualitative in the sense that they are experienced. They are known WITHOUT logical deductions. Because to even attempt to do a logical deduction on these axioms it would be necessary to use these axioms to even begin a logical deduction. That’s why they are called ‘self-evident’ and ‘first principles’. These kinds of axioms (I say kinds because I don’t know how math defines axioms) are necessarily the first principles that must be used to do any logical deductions whatsoever. Whereas observational methods, ie. physics, has hypothesis based on what is seen and then makes deductions to get to a conclusion. Axioms, such as human action, have no premise and no conclusions. Hypothesis are different from formal logical deductions, because hypothesis begin with knowing what is impossible via formal logical deductions and then therefore the hypothesis begins with an attempt on what is possible (because an individual has deducted what is impossible and therefore starts experimenting with what is possible). Formal logical deductions go through the premise-conclusion deduction formulated in an individuals mind. The hypothesis goes through the rigor of being tested exterior to an individual mind.
?
OK let me summarize the situation as I see it
Axioms of: How are they discovered? How do we know they are true?
Math They are just assumed we don’t, and don’t care
Physics Observation and inspiration we don’t. but as long as they work we are happy
Praxeology meditation upon everyday life any attempt to disprove them proves them [Kant’s trick]
“Economics” like physics same as physics
Also, After we know them, are they “obvious”? No to all but praxeology
AE disagrees about saying mainstream economics is like physics, for a couple of reasons. One of them is that physics at least has experiment going for it, which mainstream economics cannot possibly do. So that it is a parody of physics, but not true at all.
All 4 disciplines use common sense, refined over the ages into logic, to deduce things from the axioms. The very use of this process of deduction from axioms makes the whole field a branch of Math according to some [me], of logic according to others, and has no impact on what the field is called according to others. It doesn’t really matter, I suppose. A rose by any other name .
Hope we are on the same page now, wilderness.
What I think you’re describing is positivism. I don’t pretend to be a physicist, but if what you say is true, then how does physics formulate more general theories?
Let’s take the Higgs-Boson as an example: It is predicted to exist because it is a conclusion deduced from a hypothesis, that is, the “Higgs Field” as a mechanism for how some particles have mass, but some do not.
If what you described is truly how physicists go about their business, then such a theory should be impossible because we haven’t observed the Higgs multiple times.
The principle of contradiction is not a “trick”, and it was Aristotle’s originally AFAIK.
Read over the full passage I quoted in the other thread:
Very good q. I was being very brief. Physics always starts with observations. I will make up a case to illustrate, a case simplified and rearranged from what happened in real life.Like a hollywood movie “based on a true story.”
Say Kepler makes careful observations of the motions of the planets. Sunday they were here. Monday there. etc. Well what good are all those individual observations when it comes to predicting what will happen next year, say?
So the next step is that some genius, Newton, sees a pattern in the observations. With some sudden burst of creativity, inspiration, call it what you will, he notices that they seem to obey some formula.
In a further burst of inspiration, he takes a wild guess from out of nowhere. The sun and the planets, in fact everything in the universe, attract each other depending on the inverse square of their distances. This is a hypothesis, and if we assume it, some fancy calculus then deduces all of Keplers observations. And it lets us predict where the planets will be in the future. The more things that fit in with the hypothesis, meaning the more predictions it makes taht actually come true, the happier we are with it.
I am guessing that the Higgs Boson was an inspired guess to unite certain observations so that we could predict what would happen in similar cases. Yep, that’s it. here’s the wiki:
“The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics,”
But rest assured Higgs didnt just sit there watching TV and say out of nowhere. “Hey maybe I’ll assume there is a Higgs Boson.” He would have bothered only because there was a problem of observations he had to solve.
In any case, what Higgs and Newton did is for the chosen few. The vast bulk of the study of physics is spent studying the deductions from their inspired hypotheses. One good hypothesis can create thick volumes of deductions.
As for positivism, I am no philosopher, but I think what happened is that the method physiscists used was so successful [in the area of study they chose] that certain philosophers got up and said, “Maybe starting from observations is the ONLY way to know ANYTHING. Yes.”
I dunno, but look at great poetry or other art. The artist lets stuff deep in himself onto paper, and lo and behold, we all know exactly what he’s talking about. It seems so right, so satisfying to read about. It’s what we have felt ourselves, in some incoherent way, and he just KNOWS. I think positivism has some explaining to do, how do we all connect to that artist’s work? I mean, are they denying the existence of our inner life? I truly speak from ignorance here.
Bottom line, Steph is right that about 99% of the body of knowledge we have of physics is deduction from axioms. If you were describing the remaining 1%, the way the initial axioms are arrived at, you are right of course.
Ok, I did. Seems to agree with what I wrote, right?