Human perspective hindrance to better scientific models?

[Sparky]

Does anyone else here wonder if our perspective as humans will prevent us from coming up with scientific models that describe the Universe better? For example we experience particles (any discrete object around us) and wave phenomena (in water, etc) all the time and hence it was only reasonable to use these as the basis for our descriptions of reality on all levels.

Obviously it is not quite this simple in that there are always variations and combinations of the two descriptions (wave-particle duality and the like) but if there was a better (more simple and/or generic) way to view things could our intuitive understanding of concepts such as particles and waves blind us to it? Or will it just take a genius similar to Einstein to discover this better way (assuming it even exists of course) and overthrow the current relevant theories?

This is something that I think about a bit and just wondered what others' opinions are. Will our particular experience (as humans) of the Universe prevent us from having or gaining a full or optimal model of the Universe?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I think we can get pretty close to "ultimate" truth... Not at 100%, but still... that's why we've developed the scientific method. It's not perfect but it's pretty much the most reliable system there is...

 

[Deleted member 619]

I think the real barrier is language. Take your example of wave-particle duality: It's almost certain that the entities being described are neither wave nor particle, but something else that we don't have the language to express, thus our conception is limited to terms that we can express. Attempts to clarify have ended up with nonsensical terms like 'wavicle'. The reality (metaphysical caveats aside) is probably that, like our theories and models, these terms are approximate descriptions of behaviours, rather than descriptions of the true nature of the entities in question.

In many cases, the models we have, while imperfect, represent a refining of our understanding, and they are in many cases robust, but the language we employ to describe the models is problematic. The problem is pretty clear: How do you explain the colour blue to somebody who's been blind since birth? The same problem applies to attempting to explain, in common language, the thoroughly counter-intuitive principles elucidated by relativity or quantum mechanics.

We see such linguistic shortcomings all over the place, especially when dealing with things not open to our middle-world perception. The real question, then, is how have we managed to understand these things at all?


It's also worth noting that, no matter how refined our observations are, we can't actually make any headway in the question of what we observe is reality. What observation can we make to demonstrate or falsify this? None, of course. Thus, science is the study of phenomena, phenomena being what we observe. It can't be asserted that it is the study of reality, or noumena.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I think the real barrier is language. Take your example of wave-particle duality: It's almost certain that the entities being described are neither wave nor particle, but something else that we don't have the language to express, thus our conception is limited to terms that we can express. Attempts to clarify have ended up with nonsensical terms like 'wavicle'. The reality (metaphysical caveats aside) is probably that, like our theories and models, these terms are approximate descriptions of behaviours, rather than descriptions of the true nature of the entities in question.

In many cases, the models we have, while imperfect, represent a refining of our understanding, and they are in many cases robust, but the language we employ to describe the models is problematic. The problem is pretty clear: How do you explain the colour blue to somebody who's been blind since birth? The same problem applies to attempting to explain, in common language, the thoroughly counter-intuitive principles elucidated by relativity or quantum mechanics.

We see such linguistic shortcomings all over the place, especially when dealing with things not open to our middle-world perception. The real question, then, is how have we managed to understand these things at all?


It's also worth noting that, no matter how refined our observations are, we can't actually make any headway in the question of what we observe is reality. What observation can we make to demonstrate or falsify this? None, of course. Thus, science is the study of phenomena, phenomena being what we observe. It can't be asserted that it is the study of reality, or noumena.

You took the words off my mouth and improved them.
That... I can agree on... perfectly, sir. Spot on. I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Squawk]

I'd argue that we do have, or are acquring, the language. Maths. The issue is that maths may be the only way that we can adequately describe certain phenomena, with no real ability to actually visualise what's going on. Think of space time represented by that rubber sheet, with massive objects forming gravity wells, turning the 2d space time into a 3d object. It sorta works, but not really.

Our rational minds may prevent us from making the leap in understanding necessary to generate the maths to model all of reality, so in that sense human perspective might limit what we can achieve. It could also be true that maths is not sufficient.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'd argue that we do have, or are acquring, the language. Maths. The issue is that maths may be the only way that we can adequately describe certain phenomena, with no real ability to actually visualise what's going on. Think of space time represented by that rubber sheet, with massive objects forming gravity wells, turning the 2d space time into a 3d object. It sorta works, but not really.

Absolutely, though maths isn't accessible to the majority, and certainly not the maths involved in perturbative M-Theory, etc. Indeed, this level of maths isn't completely accessible to the physicists who deal with it every day, or it would be complete, and we'd have some idea of whether or not it is in accord with reality.

Some of the visualisations work, certainly, but attempting to describe, for example, relativistic time-dilation, or quantum non-locality (especially to someone who is only just grasping the implications of special relativity and the cosmic speed limit) can be problematic.

Our rational minds may prevent us from making the leap in understanding necessary to generate the maths to model all of reality, so in that sense human perspective might limit what we can achieve. It could also be true that maths is not sufficient.

Both distinct possibilities.,


Anyhoo, how do, fella? It's been a while.

Not been online much, and I feel a certain responsibility to Ratskep, as something akin to a founder, so I've been spending most of what little time I have there. Hope you're well.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I joined RatSkep... didn't quite like the ambient. No offense... I'll probably give it another try later.

 

[Sparky]

Interesting points hakenslash. I hadn't thought about language as a problem with regards to our understanding of the Universe but now that you say it it makes good sense.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I joined RatSkep... didn't quite like the ambient. No offense... I'll probably give it another try later.

No offence taken. It isn't for everyone. It there can be pretty confrontational, and a lot less relaxed than here. We do get some of the best chew-toys, though, which is always fun.

Sometimes, I find myself needing a break from it myself, which is why I come to places like this for a wind down, but as I said, I'm kind of one of the de facto founders of the place, and I feel some responsibility toward it.

What I do like about it is it's really quite diverse, and you can choose, on any given day, to go and beat up creationists, or debunk pseudoscience of all strips, or just shoot the breeze in the social areas of the forum. Of course, it doesn't hurt that it grew out of the demise of RDF, which was a great bonding experience, although we didn't view it as such at the time, of course. Most of us are very comfortable with each other.

It can probably seem quite manic there at first, but you get used to it, and the debunking is like nowhere else, especially with the likes of Calilasseia and susu.exp there, among others. I can't tell you how much I've learned from some of those guys.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Interesting points hakenslash. I hadn't thought about language as a problem with regards to our understanding of the Universe but now that you say it it makes good sense.

It's not something I would have really considered either but, having spent the last few years trying to find ways of analogising exactly the concepts in your examples for the layman, it was a conclusion that I arrived at.

The hardest and most important challenge to overcome when teaching anything is, in my opinion, generating just the right points of reference. Points of reference are the things that we hang our understanding on, and their importance can't be overstated. Without the right point of reference, I could waffle on all day about the implications of the uncertainty principle, and it might fly straight over your head. Once you have the right points of reference, though, you have something to attach the information to. Analogies are the simplest route to this, but choosing the right analogy can still be difficult, because the analogy has to be simple enough to be grasped, but not so simple that it's misleading. It's always really easy to set up an ambiguous analogy so that the listener doesn't pick up on which bits are being analogised. It should also be noted that what constitutes the right point of reference will vary from person to person, based on their understanding of the example you choose for analogy. Universal analogies can be found, but they're really hard.

One of the other major problems is that you can think that somebody's understood what you've told them, and they will confirm this to be the case, but then you often find that they picked up on the wrong aspect of the analogy later, and your attempt fell on stony ground, as it were.

 

[Pulsar]

We do get some of the best chew-toys, though, which is always fun.

Yes, I see you guys are having fun with another aether fruitcake. Don't send him here!

 

[Sparky]

One of the other major problems is that you can think that somebody's understood what you've told them, and they will confirm this to be the case, but then you often find that they picked up on the wrong aspect of the analogy later, and your attempt fell on stony ground, as it were.

Hopefully this isn't me! :lol:

 

[Squawk]

Things are going pretty well thanks mate. I do occasionally have a browse over at ratskep, but haven't actively posted there in what I would guess is over a year. Certainly not long after the Dawkins fiasco. Probably for similar reasons to you, while not actually a founder of this place I've been here from the start and modding for as long as just about anyone, particularly the chat.

Always useful to have different haunts for different purposes.

 

[Deleted member 619]

We do get some of the best chew-toys, though, which is always fun.

Yes, I see you guys are having fun with another aether fruitcake. Don't send him here!

Indeed.

This one's a bit different, in that the model he's supporting is actually one that enjoys a degree of robustness, but he's completely misrepresenting it. it's essentially Bohmian wave mechanics, but he insists on using aether, rather than spacetime (Bohmian mechanics is basically a relativistic treatment of QM).

Of course, if the planned experiment to excite a macroscopic object into superposition bears fruit, then his model will be dead in the water, and it will be a big nail in the coffin of MWI as well.

Still while this aethertard insists on clinging to aether, he's only hurting himself. He's also not nearly as sophisticated as Czar was, seeming only to want to keep parroting the same 20 words in response to every single question put to him, along with reams of citations that dont support him.

 

[Deleted member 619]

One of the other major problems is that you can think that somebody's understood what you've told them, and they will confirm this to be the case, but then you often find that they picked up on the wrong aspect of the analogy later, and your attempt fell on stony ground, as it were.

Hopefully this isn't me! :lol:

We'll see... :twisted:

 

[Deleted member 619]

Things are going pretty well thanks mate.

Excellent.

I do occasionally have a browse over at ratskep, but haven't actively posted there in what I would guess is over a year. Certainly not long after the Dawkins fiasco. Probably for similar reasons to you, while not actually a founder of this place I've been here from the start and modding for as long as just about anyone, particularly the chat.

I remember. I think it was actually you that pointed me here the day after you joined. Of course, I was already pretty active at RDF by then, and only dipped in to places like VFX forum. Hehe, those were the days, eh?

Always useful to have different haunts for different purposes.

Indeed. I'm a member of most of the rationalist fora on the net, but I really only spend any time between Ratskep, here and Rationalia. The latter I like because it's really frivolous.

 

[Pulsar]

This one's a bit different, in that the model he's supporting is actually one that enjoys a degree of robustness, but he's completely misrepresenting it. it's essentially Bohmian wave mechanics, but he insists on using aether, rather than spacetime (Bohmian mechanics is basically a relativistic treatment of QM).

Of course, if the planned experiment to excite a macroscopic object into superposition bears fruit, then his model will be dead in the water, and it will be a big nail in the coffin of MWI as well.

Still while this aethertard insists on clinging to aether, he's only hurting himself. He's also not nearly as sophisticated as Czar was, seeming only to want to keep parroting the same 20 words in response to every single question put to him, along with reams of citations that dont support him.

Fascinating experiment. I didn't know the Bohm interpretation was falsifiable, I always considered the various interpretations more metaphysics than physics. I'm more the "shut up and calculate"-kind of guy
Besides, I just read The Road To Reality, and I agree with Penrose (as if I'm in a position to disagree with him) that the QM description of the R-process is incomplete.

That mpc755 guy is quite a character: he's been copy-pasting the same nonsense on more than twenty fora. His repetitive posts strike me as a symptom of autism. It's impossible to get through to him.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The various interpretations are metaphysics, in a sense. The difference in the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is that it asserts that the particle actually has a definite position and velocity, and that the interference pattern is a function of the associated wave travelling through the second slit. If this experiment actually bears fruit, the model will be falsified, because it will demonstrate that the particle actually is in two places at once, which flies in the face of that interpretation.

Indeed, it could be argued that it has already been falsified, because superposition has already been demonstrated.

I have to say that I haven't fully read up on it as yet, as I'm just beginning to get to grips with it, so my reading of it could be wrong.

 

[Squawk]

Bloody hell, the vfx chat... I remember that place well. He didn't like me. Nor you, as I recall

 

[Deleted member 619]

Dunno why. Every time I asked a question he kicked me from the chat. Either way, he disliked dprjones, a.k.a. mendacity a lot more. :lol: