This seems like an empirical question about you specifically that we cannot answer.
That said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with learning philosophy without pretending to have all the answers. I’ve studied philosophy at university and for years since then and I remain very non-committal about many of these big questions because I recognize the good arguments on both sides.
A false sense of certainty is just how you have people coming to Reddit to confidently say shit about things they have barely studied. I’d rather be like Socrates and at least know how little I know.
However, having a strong view on a topic makes you defend it more, think of it more and argue of it more. Isn't that better in discovering new areas than just thinking 'there are different ways to view this, it's not worth fighting over'?
I never said you shouldn't have strong views. And I never said things aren't worth fighting over because there are different (presumably equally valid) ways of viewing things.
I can have strong views that X is a good argument for A and Y is a good argument for B while still not claiming to know whether A or B is true. And it certainly doesn't mean I believe A and B are commensurate in the end.
Great scientists throughout history have held many different philosophical positions and views, and others have not engaged with wider philosophy at all.
A diversity of backgrounds and views has generally been a boon to scientific idea generation, so you shouldn't worry about holding any view, as long as you're willing to do the actual scientific work.
No. In fact, I'd argue that Einstein's philosophy held him back from embracing the quantum revolution later in life. His insistence on determinism prevented him from accepting the results of experiments that clearly demonstrated the stochastic nature of quantum events. Good physicists, like all good scientists, should question even their most deeply held beliefs in light of new data.
Edit: My apologies, I'm wrong on all the details here. See discussion below. I still think my answer to OPs main question is correct, but the Einstein story and analogy do not hold.
Quantum mechanics is very unlikely to be non-deterministic. Non-determinism is mathematically the least parsimonious set of assumptions you can make and QM does not require such an assumption. The Schrödinger equation is deterministic and taking it as stated — unitary — explains why a measurement device would create the appearance of non-determinism.
Welp, I learned something today. The version of the story of Einstein rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation that I learned seems to be both factually incorrect and completely lacking in subtlety and rigor.
Thanks for pointing this out to me! My apologies for spreading this false narrative.
It was not "his philosophy" at all. He had a type of models for physics in mind, a physical intuition about how physics should go. That's physics and math, not philosophy. The type of models he sought are currently limited, that may or may not change in the future. But that's still physics and not philosophy.
More than models, I believe that he used his ability to view things in different ways. If you look at his interviews, he puts more emphasis on imagination, creativity, curiosity and philosophy than purely physics and maths
Physics isn't mutually exclusive with philosophy. Imagination, curiosity, and creativity are important for both domains. There's room for both--in fact, they need each other to remain relevant.
And quantum physics isn't stochastic but it is probabilistic, not purely deterministic as you seem to imply.
I'm saying Einstein did physics and maths, for physical and mathematical reasons. Some of that work will admit philosophical readings, but those are readings of his work, not his work.
>
There's room for both--in fact, they need each other to remain relevant.
No, they don't. Philosophers do their thing because they enjoy it. It may accasionally be relevant for phycisists, the same way other areas are relevant. But pretending philosophy has a special place is misguided and misleading.
I don't care. If I do physics and maths, then I do physics and maths. Philosophy is not something a mathematician nor a phycisist do.
Philosophers needing outside validation by claiming ownership of other fields activities is something to be dealt in therapy, not by asking others to engage them in their delusions.
Of course those delusions are sometimes quite interesting and engaging, and then its productive. As with everything else.
> It was not "his philosophy" at all. He had a type of models for physics in mind, a physical intuition about how physics should go. That's physics and math, not philosophy.
Einstein? He was a realist. I’m not sure what distinction you’re drawing here. Are you saying he didn’t have reasons for being a realist?
> The type of models he sought are currently limited, that may or may not change in the future.
In what way?
> But that's still physics and not philosophy.
If realism vs instrumentalism isn’t philosophy, then what is?
you are mistaking the physics view on a problem with the philosophical label put on that view when philosophers deem a part of the same problem interesting.
Physics is not philosophy, nor it needs it. Still, physics is a nice source for philosophical problems, and sometimes the philosophical take might be illuminating.
> you are mistaking the physics view on a problem with the philosophical label put on that view when philosophers deem a part of the same problem interesting.
Didn’t you just tell me you don’t know or care what philosophy is?
You also didn’t answer a single question. If realism bs instrumentalism isn’t philosophy, then what is?
again: I can have a position about a problem that a philosopher will label someway or another without my position actually being anything outside my own field.
for example, when I say mathematical objects exist in some capacity independently of human minds, a philosopher may or may not say I'm a platonist. But that does not mean that he understood my position nor that my actual position really fits his label.
Phycisists intutions about how their theories are interpreted are part of their doing physics. It is a part that connects with philosophical questions, but those are not philosophical questions per se, they are physical questions that interest philosophers and connect with philosophy.
Quite the contrary. Einstein was first and foremost a skeptic—antipathy to philosophy is where it all begins. Being open to possibilities the path dependencies of the field obscure. When you catch that glimmer of some new algorithmic compression of the universe, the obsessive passion follows as a matter of course.
The key to being a great scientist is curiosity. You do not have to be obnoxious with your opinions, even if that attitude makes for good YouTube clips and anecdotes. You don’t have to be opinionated about philosophy, but it is important to be curious about it.
If you are one of the few persons with high skill in physics, what obligation do you have to other fields and will taking a stand in other fields help or hurt your advancement of new ideas?
I don’t think there’s a precise answer.
On not fully committing normatively:
Per western science norms of fallibilism we should be conscientious to hold our claims as fallible and importantly not confuse a reliable model of reality as ontologically equivalent to reality itself.
Per eastern norms of inquiry, we should be cautious not to reify anything at all. Conventional pragmatic modeling is fine, but their claim is that attachment to a reification produces ignorance instead of wisdom.
Now that said, psychologically we seem to in many cases have to be somewhat emotionally attached to our assertions as if they are really metaphysically the case in order to generate the intense motivation to breakthrough to new ideas. Eg most think Logical Posivitism was wrong, but within the push we did in fact develop a lot of useful inquiry that’s with us today. Did it go on too long? We can’t really know.
There’s perhaps a middle ground that might fit the tension you feel. Instead of taking a decisive stance on ontological interpretations of physics, you can defend against blockages of inquiry you don’t see as justified. Eg if someone claims that the only possible interpretation of physics is XYZ yet there’s another interpretation that disagrees, is either actually forced by the physics. Going all the way to free will I think is so many levels of analysis beyond physics that that might not be the domain to do this.
Instead you could investigate whether not it’s justified by physics to claim that the only valid explanation of reality is state-based ontology whether than state-based physicalism, panpsych, RM or analytic idealism. Ie does physics rule out Ontic structural realism, structural naturalism, process/organizational naturalism, and other relational-process-structural-organizational explanatory ontological interpretations of physics.
The inverse. Studying physics and not philosophy will make you a bad philosopher. As brilliant as Einstein was, he was a physicist.
You should probably read philosophers on free will. If you want a determinist physicist’s perspective on free will, maybe go to someone who is both. Sean Carroll is a PhD philosopher as well as professor of quantum mechanics. And he’s a compatibalist.
What? Einstein literally said that, “without philosophy I would have contributed nothing to science”, and had deliberately sat down to question many philosophical things, like how logical constructs of the mind are just conjectures - seperate from empirical reality until tested.
And he criticised Newton for how much he relied on inductive reasoning.
And induction is philosophically impossible. He respected philosophy, but was not a practiced student of it.
The fact that he engaged in philosophy was excellent and probably essential to his progress. But he wasn’t a well studied philosopher. He made many philosophical errors which OP copied above. Including missing the fact that most philosophers agree that determinism and free will are compatible.
Free will isn’t necessarily related to determinism. Most philosophers are compatilbalists. When the most famous determinists in quantum mechanics like Sean Carroll are compatibalists. The issue is how non-philosophers mistaken”free will” for a claim about violating causality rather than the subjective experience of what it is like to be the part of the universe responsible for a decision.
Far-Tune-9464 | 7 hours ago
Your worldview defines your relationship with reality.
You do not need to be a philosopher to be a great physicist.
Both of these things are true.
Find_another_whey | 7 hours ago
Your ability to take on other worldviews, in a way that accounts for their stated premises but not your own imagined or familiar constraints
Is so strikingly common in physics and philosophy, and arguably moreso than less abstract pursuits worthy of a philosophical doctorate (PhD)
[OP] parkenste1n | 7 hours ago
I don't mean becoming an actual philosopher, I meant strongly committing to a view as einstein did with determinism and other philosophical takes
Far-Tune-9464 | an hour ago
You can't help having philosophical takes. It's part of being human.
FrontAd9873 | 7 hours ago
This seems like an empirical question about you specifically that we cannot answer.
That said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with learning philosophy without pretending to have all the answers. I’ve studied philosophy at university and for years since then and I remain very non-committal about many of these big questions because I recognize the good arguments on both sides.
A false sense of certainty is just how you have people coming to Reddit to confidently say shit about things they have barely studied. I’d rather be like Socrates and at least know how little I know.
[OP] parkenste1n | 7 hours ago
However, having a strong view on a topic makes you defend it more, think of it more and argue of it more. Isn't that better in discovering new areas than just thinking 'there are different ways to view this, it's not worth fighting over'?
FrontAd9873 | 7 hours ago
I never said you shouldn't have strong views. And I never said things aren't worth fighting over because there are different (presumably equally valid) ways of viewing things.
I can have strong views that X is a good argument for A and Y is a good argument for B while still not claiming to know whether A or B is true. And it certainly doesn't mean I believe A and B are commensurate in the end.
titotal | 7 hours ago
Great scientists throughout history have held many different philosophical positions and views, and others have not engaged with wider philosophy at all.
A diversity of backgrounds and views has generally been a boon to scientific idea generation, so you shouldn't worry about holding any view, as long as you're willing to do the actual scientific work.
[OP] parkenste1n | 6 hours ago
Hahaha that's very true
wizkid123 | 8 hours ago
No. In fact, I'd argue that Einstein's philosophy held him back from embracing the quantum revolution later in life. His insistence on determinism prevented him from accepting the results of experiments that clearly demonstrated the stochastic nature of quantum events. Good physicists, like all good scientists, should question even their most deeply held beliefs in light of new data.
Edit: My apologies, I'm wrong on all the details here. See discussion below. I still think my answer to OPs main question is correct, but the Einstein story and analogy do not hold.
fox-mcleod | 8 hours ago
Which results are those?
Quantum mechanics is very unlikely to be non-deterministic. Non-determinism is mathematically the least parsimonious set of assumptions you can make and QM does not require such an assumption. The Schrödinger equation is deterministic and taking it as stated — unitary — explains why a measurement device would create the appearance of non-determinism.
wizkid123 | 7 hours ago
Welp, I learned something today. The version of the story of Einstein rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation that I learned seems to be both factually incorrect and completely lacking in subtlety and rigor.
Thanks for pointing this out to me! My apologies for spreading this false narrative.
preferCotton222 | 7 hours ago
It was not "his philosophy" at all. He had a type of models for physics in mind, a physical intuition about how physics should go. That's physics and math, not philosophy. The type of models he sought are currently limited, that may or may not change in the future. But that's still physics and not philosophy.
[OP] parkenste1n | 7 hours ago
More than models, I believe that he used his ability to view things in different ways. If you look at his interviews, he puts more emphasis on imagination, creativity, curiosity and philosophy than purely physics and maths
preferCotton222 | 7 hours ago
my dear dude:
> puts more emphasis on imagination, creativity, curiosity
*that IS physics and maths. And NOT philosophy at all.
Philosophy enthusiasts have these weird wrong ideas about other fields. That's just not how it goes.
Thermodynamo | 6 hours ago
Physics isn't mutually exclusive with philosophy. Imagination, curiosity, and creativity are important for both domains. There's room for both--in fact, they need each other to remain relevant.
And quantum physics isn't stochastic but it is probabilistic, not purely deterministic as you seem to imply.
preferCotton222 | 5 hours ago
I've implied nothing of the sort.
I'm saying Einstein did physics and maths, for physical and mathematical reasons. Some of that work will admit philosophical readings, but those are readings of his work, not his work.
> There's room for both--in fact, they need each other to remain relevant.
No, they don't. Philosophers do their thing because they enjoy it. It may accasionally be relevant for phycisists, the same way other areas are relevant. But pretending philosophy has a special place is misguided and misleading.
Thermodynamo | 5 hours ago
What's the point of doing science if we can't meaningfully interpret the results?
preferCotton222 | 5 hours ago
We do interpret results. That's not philosophy. That's more science.
Thermodynamo | 5 hours ago
Lol
fox-mcleod | 5 hours ago
You’re going to have to do better than that. What do you think philosophy is? Define it.
preferCotton222 | 5 hours ago
I don't care. If I do physics and maths, then I do physics and maths. Philosophy is not something a mathematician nor a phycisist do.
Philosophers needing outside validation by claiming ownership of other fields activities is something to be dealt in therapy, not by asking others to engage them in their delusions.
Of course those delusions are sometimes quite interesting and engaging, and then its productive. As with everything else.
fox-mcleod | 4 hours ago
> I don't care.
About what?
> Philosophy is not something a mathematician nor a phycisist do.
How do you know that if you don’t know what it is?
preferCotton222 | 4 hours ago
the same way a philosopher is not doing math when he asks whether numbers exist or not.
fox-mcleod | 5 hours ago
> It was not "his philosophy" at all. He had a type of models for physics in mind, a physical intuition about how physics should go. That's physics and math, not philosophy.
Einstein? He was a realist. I’m not sure what distinction you’re drawing here. Are you saying he didn’t have reasons for being a realist?
> The type of models he sought are currently limited, that may or may not change in the future.
In what way?
> But that's still physics and not philosophy.
If realism vs instrumentalism isn’t philosophy, then what is?
preferCotton222 | 5 hours ago
you are mistaking the physics view on a problem with the philosophical label put on that view when philosophers deem a part of the same problem interesting.
Physics is not philosophy, nor it needs it. Still, physics is a nice source for philosophical problems, and sometimes the philosophical take might be illuminating.
fox-mcleod | 4 hours ago
> you are mistaking the physics view on a problem with the philosophical label put on that view when philosophers deem a part of the same problem interesting.
Didn’t you just tell me you don’t know or care what philosophy is?
You also didn’t answer a single question. If realism bs instrumentalism isn’t philosophy, then what is?
preferCotton222 | 4 hours ago
again: I can have a position about a problem that a philosopher will label someway or another without my position actually being anything outside my own field.
for example, when I say mathematical objects exist in some capacity independently of human minds, a philosopher may or may not say I'm a platonist. But that does not mean that he understood my position nor that my actual position really fits his label.
Phycisists intutions about how their theories are interpreted are part of their doing physics. It is a part that connects with philosophical questions, but those are not philosophical questions per se, they are physical questions that interest philosophers and connect with philosophy.
Royal_Carpet_1263 | 7 hours ago
Quite the contrary. Einstein was first and foremost a skeptic—antipathy to philosophy is where it all begins. Being open to possibilities the path dependencies of the field obscure. When you catch that glimmer of some new algorithmic compression of the universe, the obsessive passion follows as a matter of course.
Thermodynamo | 6 hours ago
Being able to hold uncertainty on something is also a philosophical position, so long as you can still actively investigate that uncertainty.
reddituserperson1122 | 5 hours ago
The key to being a great scientist is curiosity. You do not have to be obnoxious with your opinions, even if that attitude makes for good YouTube clips and anecdotes. You don’t have to be opinionated about philosophy, but it is important to be curious about it.
Freuds-Mother | 7 hours ago
If you are one of the few persons with high skill in physics, what obligation do you have to other fields and will taking a stand in other fields help or hurt your advancement of new ideas?
I don’t think there’s a precise answer.
On not fully committing normatively:
Per western science norms of fallibilism we should be conscientious to hold our claims as fallible and importantly not confuse a reliable model of reality as ontologically equivalent to reality itself.
Per eastern norms of inquiry, we should be cautious not to reify anything at all. Conventional pragmatic modeling is fine, but their claim is that attachment to a reification produces ignorance instead of wisdom.
Now that said, psychologically we seem to in many cases have to be somewhat emotionally attached to our assertions as if they are really metaphysically the case in order to generate the intense motivation to breakthrough to new ideas. Eg most think Logical Posivitism was wrong, but within the push we did in fact develop a lot of useful inquiry that’s with us today. Did it go on too long? We can’t really know.
There’s perhaps a middle ground that might fit the tension you feel. Instead of taking a decisive stance on ontological interpretations of physics, you can defend against blockages of inquiry you don’t see as justified. Eg if someone claims that the only possible interpretation of physics is XYZ yet there’s another interpretation that disagrees, is either actually forced by the physics. Going all the way to free will I think is so many levels of analysis beyond physics that that might not be the domain to do this.
Instead you could investigate whether not it’s justified by physics to claim that the only valid explanation of reality is state-based ontology whether than state-based physicalism, panpsych, RM or analytic idealism. Ie does physics rule out Ontic structural realism, structural naturalism, process/organizational naturalism, and other relational-process-structural-organizational explanatory ontological interpretations of physics.
fox-mcleod | 8 hours ago
The inverse. Studying physics and not philosophy will make you a bad philosopher. As brilliant as Einstein was, he was a physicist.
You should probably read philosophers on free will. If you want a determinist physicist’s perspective on free will, maybe go to someone who is both. Sean Carroll is a PhD philosopher as well as professor of quantum mechanics. And he’s a compatibalist.
UnknownBreadd | 7 hours ago
What? Einstein literally said that, “without philosophy I would have contributed nothing to science”, and had deliberately sat down to question many philosophical things, like how logical constructs of the mind are just conjectures - seperate from empirical reality until tested.
And he criticised Newton for how much he relied on inductive reasoning.
fox-mcleod | 5 hours ago
And induction is philosophically impossible. He respected philosophy, but was not a practiced student of it.
The fact that he engaged in philosophy was excellent and probably essential to his progress. But he wasn’t a well studied philosopher. He made many philosophical errors which OP copied above. Including missing the fact that most philosophers agree that determinism and free will are compatible.
[OP] parkenste1n | 8 hours ago
Ah I see thank you
Different-Radio3484 | 8 hours ago
Being a physicist that doesn't believe in determinism is pretty wild to me lol
Free will is an illusion
[OP] parkenste1n | 8 hours ago
Why do you think so?
fox-mcleod | 7 hours ago
Free will isn’t necessarily related to determinism. Most philosophers are compatilbalists. When the most famous determinists in quantum mechanics like Sean Carroll are compatibalists. The issue is how non-philosophers mistaken”free will” for a claim about violating causality rather than the subjective experience of what it is like to be the part of the universe responsible for a decision.