A Trend?
by BradfordDavid Berlinksi on Physics and Metaphysics is an Uncommon Descent blog entry by Granville Sewell. Sewell begins:
The discussions on multiverses and string theory bring to mind the following comments of David Berlinski (in “Was There a Big Bang?”):
He then goes on to quote Berlinski:
“Standing at the gate of modern time, Isaac Newton forged the curious social pact by which rational men and women have lived ever since. The description of the physical world would be vouchsafed to a particular institution, that of modern physics; and it was to the physicists and not the priests, soothsayers, poets, politicians,…that society would look for judgments about the nature of the physical world…In exchange for their privilege, the physicists were to provide an account of the physical world at once penetrating, general, persuasive, and true.
Until recently, the great physicists have been scrupulous about honoring the terms of their contract. They have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not…
This scrupulousness has lately been compromised. The result has been the calculated or careless erasure of the line separating disciplined physical inquiry from speculative metaphysics. Contemporary cosmologists feel free to say anything that pops into their heads. Unhappy examples are everywhere: absurd schemes to model time on the basis of the complex numbers, as in Steven Hawkin’s ‘A Brief History of Time’; bizarre and ugly contraptions for cosmic inflation; universes multiplying beyond the reach of observations…theories of every stripe and variety, all of them uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.”
Has there been a decline in scrupulousness which tends to obscure boundaries between physics and metaphyscis? It would be noteworthy if true and beg for an inquiry as to why this is so. I know of two physics professors (Olegt and David Heddle) who sometimes drop by and would be particularly interested in their input but as always all are welcome to weigh in.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Like some conservative pundits, Berlinski yearns for an ideal world of the past that never existed. Great physicists of the old were no strangers to metaphysics. Albert Einstein famously said "God does not play dice" to explain his dislike of the quantum uncertainty. The EPR paradox, an attempt to show that quantum mechanics is internally inconsistent, was an outgrowth of that metaphysical skepticism.
Newton wrote in Opticks:
Is that not metaphysics?
Berlinski's arguments against modern cosmology are not particularly interesting and sometimes are plain ignorant. Imaginary time is not an "absurd scheme", it is by now a familiar concept in statistical physics of quantum systems, no more controversial than complex numbers in electrical engineering. A physical system at a temperature T behaves as if it had a time dimension of imaginary length ih-barT. Cosmic inflation is consistent with the fluctuation spectrum of the microwave background radiation, so that's not exactly pure speculation.
My advice would be to ignore him.
Comment by olegt — January 6, 2009 @ 9:55 am
January 6th, 2009 at 10:05 am
That should have been i h-bar/T.
Comment by olegt — January 6, 2009 @ 10:05 am
January 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Hi Olegt. You did a good job at pointing out that there is a history to metaphysical musings and that concepts, thought by some to be metaphysical, are in fact rooting in empirical findings. When you write that some conservative pundits yearn for an ideal world that never existed you are pointing out the need for historic accuracy. However, it should be noted that there have been trends throughout history. Some tend to be cyclical. Others permanent breakthroughs. The very fact that a scientific approach was brought to bear on the study of nature and subsequently insitutionalized indicates that fundamental changes do in fact occur. One needs to be rigorous though in distinguishing such historic changes from romanticized versions of history.
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I think the problem is that it is difficult to distinguish "disciplined physical inquiry" from "speculative metaphysics" when the proposals are vastly more complicated than anything a layman could hope to evaluate.
But what motive is there for advancing a metaphysical position such as imaginary time? Does this fit into some scheme I cannot imagine for advancing materialism or overturning religion?
Comment by don provan — January 6, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I suspect (but am not proposing) that the motive would be alleged as self-advancement or self-promotion. But that's just speculation on my part.
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
don provan, Bradford,
I can't figure out whether you, guys, are serious or kidding. You don't mind that electrical engineers use imaginary numbers for the description of real ac circuits, do you? Imaginary time in quantum statistical mechanics is a similar computational trick. Nothing metaphysical. It's pure math.
Comment by olegt — January 6, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Oh, yeah. As if Steve Hawkings is famous because he suggested imaginary time.
I'm just stipulating whatever Bardford or Berlinski want to claim about these proposals. I appreciate you providing actual information about them and I hope you continue to, but I already know that Bradford will reject your input specifically because anyone expert enough to understand these concepts is automatically suspected of defending them only because they have motives as vague and silly as needing "self-advancement or self-promotion".
Comment by don provan — January 6, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Perhaps Berlinski's problem is that the metaphysics of the past sounded a lot more like Theology than the metaphysics of the present. Perhaps his distaste is not about the amount of metaphysical pondering now verse then, but rather its alignment with his personal metaphysics.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 6, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
dp:
You're a piece of work dp. I already gave Olegt an atta boy for his input and it was not me who wrote:
As for motive, there must be one and you are the one who raised the issue of what their critics would attribute motive to. It could be something as simple as sincere belief.
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Just a reminder for those unaware. Berlinski is not a theist. He could have sincere beliefs as well. You can be sincere and wrong at the same time.
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
No, it really couldn't. You wouldn't have heard of these ideas if they were just crackpot theories based on nothing but belief.
I asked for a motive for presenting these ideas if they are nothing but "speculative metaphysics". It seems obvious to me that the real motive is "disciplined physical inquiry".
Are you suggesting that if he were a theist, we shouldn't consider him sincere?
Is there a theistic relation here? What about imaginary time is objectionable to a theist?
Anyway, I'm sure we're all willing to consider Berlinski's position impartially. For example, I'm sure no one here would suggest that he was unscrupulous simply because he was proposing something so advanced that we couldn't follow it.
Comment by don provan — January 6, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
As for motive, there must be one and you are the one who raised the issue of what their critics would attribute motive to. It could be something as simple as sincere belief.
Who said they were crackpot theories? Not Berlinski or me. Berlinski suggested a transgression the line between physics and metaphysics.
Just a reminder for those unaware. Berlinski is not a theist. He could have sincere beliefs as well. You can be sincere and wrong at the same time.
Are you serious or kidding?
Why would you ask this question when the individual raising the imaginary time issue is not a theist.
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I thought you brought up theism because you considered it pertinent, but I guess I was mistaken. Why did you mention that Berlinski wasn't a theist if you consider it irrelevant whether he is or isn't?
I don't suppose I was serious, but there's really no other way to interpret what you wrote other than, "Berlinski is not a theist, and therefore He could have sincere beliefs as well." But, again, that's because I thought you actually had some reason to bring up theism, but now I know it was a red herring.
Comment by don provan — January 6, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Berlinski's lack of theistic beliefs were mentioned because Todd B. wrote:
Berlinski's theistic metaphysics have little in common with those of Isaac Newton or any number of theistic scientists mentioned in the pages of history. So why is the argument that "Berlinski's problem is that the metaphysics of the past sounded a lot more like Theology than the metaphysics of the present" compelling?
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
olegt- your a brave man for attacking Berlinski in a forum which he doesn't participate.
People who do that- attack people who are not around to defend themselves- should be ignored.
Comment by ID guy — January 11, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
ID guy (aka Joseph aka Joe G):
The most recent post on your own blog starts like this:
Do Scott and Branch participate in your forum?
Comment by Raevmo — January 11, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 9:38 am
My namer is Jim. My last name starts with a "H". And I do not have a blog.
That said I do agree that Eugenie and Glenn are dishonest assholes. That is evidenced by their articles pertaining to evolution and ID.
And seeing that Scientific American will NOT give IDists the space to respond to their nonsense I woiuld say that they are cowards. And the evidence proves it.
So now what Raevma? More lies or do you want to meet and I will show you my ID?
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 9:38 am
January 12th, 2009 at 9:49 am
ID guy wrote:
ID guy,
In the opening post, Bradford specifically asked for my opinion about Belrinski's quote. I obliged. Take your complaint to Bradford.
Comment by olegt — January 12, 2009 @ 9:49 am
January 12th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
olegt, my apologies.
Comment by ID guy — January 12, 2009 @ 12:15 pm