Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: LIVING BY ACCIDENT Humanity lives currently by accident. We’ll

    RT @ThruTheHayes: LIVING BY ACCIDENT

    Humanity lives currently by accident. We’ll begin to live deliberately when we sufficiently integrate…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-24 02:07:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827165921862918325

  • QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE “the science of science itself” We’re working on the d

    QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE
    “the science of science itself”
    We’re working on the definition of science and it’s relation to decidability and truth.

    PROMPT
    Can one perform science if one is not seeking to produce the testifiable (that which is testifiable by man) if given the spectrum of science from unfounded speculation through to incontestable law of a first principle: (Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty), as defined in this excerpt?

    Summary: As such any claim of science requires the following three claims:

    1. Degree of Testifiability: A declaration of the categorical demarcation of the [???] of the claim:
    … … |Category of Testifiability (One)|: Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty

    2. Constitution of the Substance: A declaration of premises of the dimensions of the claim one is testifying to:
    … … |Substance (All Appropriate)|:Theory of Existence (Metaphysics, Realism, Naturalism) > Theory of Causality (Operations) > Theory of Description (math or language or both) > Evidence (Measurements)

    3. Mandatory Due Diligence: A declaration of the dimensions of testifiability one has satisfied the demand for.
    … … |Mandatory Due Diligence (All, Promise)|: Explanatory Power > Survivability > Identity, Internal Consistency > Operational Possibility > Rational Choice > Reciprocity > Parsimony > Scope and Limits > Warrantability > Restitutability

    RESPONSE
    This is a challenging and nuanced question, and it strikes at the heart of what defines science and the boundaries of scientific inquiry. Let’s explore this by breaking it down:

    1. Core Definition of Science:
    Traditional Definition: Science is traditionally defined as a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Central to this definition is the concept of testifiability—the ability to subject a hypothesis, theory, or observation to empirical testing, and thus provide evidence that can be verified or falsified.

    2. The Spectrum of Scientific Inquiry:
    Speculation to Law: The spectrum you describe—from unfounded speculation to incontestable law of a first principle—represents a range of epistemic statuses within scientific inquiry. At one end is speculation, which may or may not be testifiable or grounded in empirical evidence. At the other end are laws or first principles, which are universally accepted as testifiable due to their empirical validation and logical coherence.

    3. Science Without Testifiability:
    Exploratory Science: In some cases, science can begin with exploratory or speculative phases where the aim is not immediately to produce testifiable results but to generate ideas, hypotheses, or frameworks that may later be subjected to testing. This exploratory phase is crucial for advancing new theories or concepts, especially in fields where empirical testing is currently limited or where the phenomena are not yet fully understood.
    Theoretical Science: Theoretical science often involves developing models, simulations, or mathematical constructs that may not be directly testifiable in the traditional sense but provide a coherent framework for understanding phenomena. Over time, parts of these theories might be tested as technology or methods advance.
    Conceptual Science: Some areas of science focus on refining concepts, definitions, or classifications that are foundational to empirical work. While these activities might not produce immediately testifiable outcomes, they are essential for the structure and coherence of scientific knowledge.

    4. Can It Still Be Called Science?:
    Depends on the Goal: If the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that can eventually be tested, then these activities can still be considered part of the scientific process. In this view, science encompasses both the generation of ideas (which may initially be speculative) and their subsequent testing and validation.
    Pseudoscience: On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid or disregard testifiability—if there is no intention of producing knowledge that can be empirically verified—then this falls outside the bounds of science and into the realm of pseudoscience, philosophy, or metaphysics. Science, by definition, seeks to produce knowledge that can be tested and verified.

    5. Practical Examples:
    Quantum Mechanics: Consider early quantum mechanics. Initial ideas like wave-particle duality began as speculative but mathematically grounded concepts. Over time, these ideas were subjected to empirical testing, leading to their acceptance as foundational scientific principles.
    String Theory: String theory offers a more contentious example. It is highly mathematical and speculative, and many aspects are not currently testifiable. Some argue that it is still part of science because it aims to eventually produce testifiable predictions, while others criticize it for its current lack of empirical testability.

    6. Science as a Process:
    Iterative Nature: Science is an iterative process where speculative or theoretical ideas are refined, tested, and either validated or discarded. The process of moving from speculation to testifiable hypothesis to validated law is what characterizes scientific progress.
    Testifiability as a Guiding Principle: Even when the immediate goal isn’t testifiability, the broader scientific endeavor is guided by the principle that knowledge should, in the end, be testifiable. This commitment distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry.

    Conclusion:
    Science is fundamentally tied to the production of testifiable knowledge. However, the scientific process includes phases where testifiability is not immediately achievable—such as in speculative, theoretical, or conceptual stages.
    These phases are still part of science if they ultimately aim to produce knowledge that can be empirically tested. If the pursuit of testifiability is entirely absent or rejected, then the activity would likely be considered outside the bounds of science, possibly falling into pseudoscience, philosophy, or speculative metaphysics.
    The guiding principle of science is that, regardless of the stage in the process, the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that is testifiable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 20:08:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827075366034534402

  • Q: Curt: “Is History a subject of Science? Are people holding Doctorates to be h

    –Q: Curt: “Is History a subject of Science? Are people holding Doctorates to be held accountable to the standards of Science? Asking for a Friend…”–

    😉 A friend answers: History SHOULD be a science, and we expect that it’s practiced as a science. But we have enough of a problem with mathematical, computational, and operational reducibility, and economic reducibility because of the complexity of causal density, categorical plasticity, point of view (participant, observer) and criteria for valuation (decidability) as well as the still (oddly) surviving debate over human nature and its limits (which we have solved), that while we can demand history be done scientifically, it hasn’t been possible until our work – and even then it only requires that, like our other work on the foundations of science, that the authors state their criteria at the opening.

    😉

    Reply addressees: @WerrellBradley


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-21 14:12:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826261165384577024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1826230506234810790

  • There are no infinities that we know of. Present evidence suggests that below th

    There are no infinities that we know of.
    Present evidence suggests that below the quantum background there is one more layer of ‘most discrete’ causality.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-13 13:07:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823345708935622742

    Reply addressees: @repairmanscully @martinmbauer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822072239652528632

  • Technically speaking science consists of the process of producing testifiable te

    Technically speaking science consists of the process of producing testifiable testimony – though explaining that requires a bit of effort. The reason the west developed philosophy and empiricism and science in sequence is almost entirely due to the european political order of individual sovereignty (of at least the warriors), the prohibition on arbitrary authority because of it, the requirement for adversarial debate before ‘juries’ because of that, and the requirement for testimony in those debates.

    Reply addressees: @JorySmith05


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-09 23:58:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822059836361543680

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1822058393168679021

  • Michael (@drmichaellevin) Question: I’m watching the bioelectric theory with cur

    Michael (@drmichaellevin)
    Question:
    I’m watching the bioelectric theory with curious but rationally skeptical interest.
    And while yes, one of the observable evolutionary laws demonstrates that if transportation of information by physical, chemical, or electromagnetic means can occur, it will occur, because evolution exploits every possible opportunity even if it’s a redundancy that later specializes.
    But a simulation that suggests the possibility of information transfer is not the same as demonstration of information transfer.
    And while I would expect some sort of ‘herding’ behavior during development and expect charge differences to encourage it; and while I can see the utility of genetic expression because of it; and possibly spatio-temporal maintenance after maturity – I don’t see the evidence yet, and this paper doesn’t help.
    So what do I need to read or grasp that I yet don’t?
    Thanks

    Reply addressees: @drmichaellevin


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-06 14:45:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820833619964821504

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820635397187420481

  • a) Producing quantum effects is not demonstrating USE of quantum effects. The pa

    a) Producing quantum effects is not demonstrating USE of quantum effects. The passage of photons or any other energy manipulates the quantum background. In fact all electrochemical transmission manipulates the quantum background. It’s meaningless unless there is some evidence of information transduction. There isn’t any.

    b) There is no relevance even if so. It would not need to have any impact on consciousness given consciousness is a relatively simple consequence of sufficient hierarchically organized recursive memory. Consciousness turns out to be relatively simple – if you have enough neurons in relation to body size and in enough of a recursive hierarchy.

    Today is another frustrating day, demonstrating why so few public intellectuals participate on social media – because one wastes time debunking nonsense accusations out of mere self defense of one’s posts.

    Reply addressees: @ToadOfYuggoth @DwightExMachina @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-06 04:04:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820672149826215936

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820603848223797481

  • Q: Curt: “Do you know anything about Stuart Hammeroff and the quantum neural int

    –Q: Curt: “Do you know anything about Stuart Hammeroff and the quantum neural interactions?”–
    Of course. And of course, it’s unfounded nonsense. A microtubule in a cell is the equivalent of cartilage in a body – it provides structural rigidity. However because of that, it also provides a rail-line for the direct transport of molecules. Molecules can be ‘walked down’ the tubule. In neurons they assist in the transfer of molecules from the soma across the axon hillock, and down the axon.
    Given that persistence of any form of proto particle to particle depends on isolation from the influence of the quantum background’s fluctuations by quanta, there is no evidence that tubules, or any other biological process responds to quantum fluctuations even if almost anything can respond to anything in the electromagnetic spectrum of particulate energy – and usually that response is disruptive not constructive.
    Unfortunately, most scientists have largely bad ideas. Penrose, has the Laureate’s Curse: that stupid ideas from nobel prize winners are heard, where otherwise stupid ideas aren’t heard at all.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @DwightExMachina @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-05 23:12:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820598796981514241

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820592719925768303

  • RT @MichaelSurrago: @skdh @curtdoolittle Meanwhile the “iconic math” of William

    RT @MichaelSurrago: @skdh @curtdoolittle Meanwhile the “iconic math” of William Bricken remains unknown (math that looks like what it repre…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 02:54:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818118032587182322

  • RT @MichaelSurrago: When someone like @skdh or @curtdoolittle mentions the perva

    RT @MichaelSurrago: When someone like @skdh or @curtdoolittle mentions the pervasiveness of “mathiness” in the academy, I can’t help but th…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 02:54:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818117958490579332