scholarly journals Temporal Naturalism—Analysis of the Paper by Lee Smolin

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Vesterby
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Block Universe

Lee Smolin wants to convince physicists that time is real. His biggest problem is that he does not know what time is—its intrinsic nature and its basis in the universe. He cannot answer the questions: What is time? Why does time exist? and Why does time have the specific qualities that it has? As a result, in this essay Smolin does not focus very much on time itself. Instead he focuses on discussion of extraneous issues and unrealistic speculations. He wants to promote temporal naturalism, but does so by contrasting it with timeless naturalism, the block universe view of time, which is an unrealistic fiction. He brings up timeless naturalism, panpsychism, and relationalism, all of which distract from any attempt to show that time is real. This paper clarifies why these extraneous issues have no place in a discussion of the reality of time. Further, Smolin believes there is no such thing as the scientific method, which blocks him from any realistic attempt to understand time. Included here is a description of the scientific method and why that method is required to achieve an understanding of time.

The Unchanging Universe

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-86
Author(s):  
Demetris Nicolaides
Keyword(s):  
Space Time ◽  
Sense Perception ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future ◽  
Time Continuum ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Block Universe

Heraclitus declares the being (that which exists, nature) but identifies it with becoming, but Parmenides declares just the Being; only what is, is, what is not, is not. All “follows” from that: change, he argues, is logically impossible and so what is, is one and unchangeable! This dazzling absolute monism is in daring disagreement with sense perception, but curiously it has found a well-known genius as a supporter. Emboldened by his theory of relativity, Einstein considers the universe as a four-dimensional “block” (a space-time continuum like a loaf of bread) which, remarkably, contains all moments of time (of past, present, and future) always, and where change is an illusion. He said, “For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent.” In the block universe, the past is not gone, it is present; and the future, like the present, is, well, present, too.

Is There Scientific Method In Creationism Madness?

1984 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 3-26
Author(s):  
David R. Schwimmer
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Natural Phenomena ◽  
Positive Approach ◽  
Creation Science ◽  
Occam’S Razor ◽  
Hypothesis Theory ◽  
Logical Fallacies ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Occam's Razor

While no consensus exists among philosophers of science on a definition and paradigm for the “Scientific Method,” certain principles and methods of inquiry are nearly universal among working scientists and constitute a minimum framework for the concept. These include: the use of logic and Occam's Razor, objectivity, a positive approach to knowledge (i.e. that the universe is knowable and the knowledge should be obtained), and at least implicit application of the hypothesis/theory/law/fact hierarchy of generalization. Investigations of natural phenomena within these parameters may be termed “scientific” and, conversely, the circumvention of even one essential principle should remove the cachet of “Science.”A sample of “Creation Science” literature is examined to determine whether it adheres to the minimum “Scientific Method” described. Examination reveals that, indeed, all of the enumerated criteria are violated. Objectivity and the positive approach to knowledge are flouted overtly in several documents, whereas logical fallacies, violations of Occam's Razor, and misapplications of the heirarchy of generalization are rampant among (and intrinsic to) “Creationist” arguments, but typically must be ferreted out. Most distressful logical fallacies are non-factual statements, false assumptions, anachronisms, and a set of novel errors which may be termed “apparent scientism” (e.g. the citation of nonrefereed polemical writings, using conventional journal format). It is concluded that the methodological bankruptcy evidenced in materials examined removes the philosophy espoused from “Science” and leaves only the “Creationist” component.

The Moderate Fallibilism of Science

1970 ◽  
pp. 79-128
Author(s):  
Francis E. Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Reliable Method ◽  
Adequate Representation ◽  
The Universe

This chapter considers how valuable scientific knowledge is, and how certain and permanent is the knowledge gained through this method. Peirce repeatedly and firmly asserts that scientific knowledge is not a completely certain and adequate representation of its object. Science never achieves the final and absolute formulation of the universe. Pierce calls the acknowledgment of this necessary limitation of scientific knowledge “fallibilism.” It is an attitude of reserve toward science, a deliberate withholding of a complete and final commitment toward the achievements of the scientific method. At the same time, there is a spirit of confidence in science, and an assurance that science really does converge on the truth. Peircean fallibilism, then, is not a complete distrust of scientific knowledge. Rather it is tempered by the reasoned conviction that scientific knowledge is the best knowledge we have, and that the method of the sciences is the only reliable method of settling opinion, hence why his attitude is considered a “moderate fallibilism.” This chapter considers the moderate fallibilism of science as a consequent of the method of the sciences, and of the object which the sciences study, namely, the universe.

Letters to the Editor

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-161
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
Mechanism Of Action ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
Knee Jerk ◽  
Homeopathic Medicine ◽  
The Universe

Mr Shoultz's letter typifies the conventional knee-jerk response to homeopathic medicine—"We don't understand how it works, therefore it must be a fraud." This type of thinking is the antithesis of the scientific method. In science, one must observe what occurs in the universe, then set out to determine causality. It is true that the mechanism of action of homeopathic medicines is not understood. Indeed, as Mr Shoultz points out, homeopathic theory is inconsistent with current scientific belief.

How Relativity Contradicts Presentism

2002 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 277-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Saunders
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Dimensional Space ◽  
Theoretical Physics ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Objective World ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Block Universe

But this picture of a ‘block universe’, composed of a timeless web of ‘world-lines’ in a four-dimensional space, however strongly suggested by the theory of relativity, is a piece of gratuitous metaphysics. Since the concept of change, of something happening, is an inseparable component of the common-sense concept of time and a necessary component of the scientist's view of reality, it is quite out of the question that theoretical physics should require us to hold the Eleatic view that nothing happens in ‘the objective world’. Here, as so often in the philosophy of science, a useful limitation in the form of representation is mistaken for a deficiency of the universe (Black, 1962).

The Intelligibility of the Universe

2001 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 73-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Redhead
Keyword(s):  
Modern Science ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
Larry Laudan ◽  
Circular Definitions ◽  
Real Objects ◽  
Aristotelian Science ◽  
Mathematical Equations ◽  
Formal Relations ◽  
The Universe

Hume famously warned us that the ‘[The] ultimate springs and principles are totally shut up from human curiosity and enquiry’. Or, again, Newton: ‘Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity … and I frame no hypotheses.’ Aristotelian science was concerned with just such questions, the specification of occult qualities, the real essences that answer the question What is matter, etc?, the preoccupation with circular definitions such as dormative virtues, and so on. The rise of modern science is usually seen as a break with the sterility of Aristotelianism, so what exactly is it that modern science does discover, if it is not the essential nature of matter, of force, of energy, of space and time? A famous answer was provided by Poincaré: ‘The true relations between these real objects are the only reality we can attain.’ This is often regarded as the manifesto of so-called structural realism, as espoused in recent years by John Worrall, for example (cp. his (1989)). In response to the arguments of Larry Laudan (1982) against convergent realism, Worrall points to the continuity in the formal relations between elements of reality expressed by mathematical equations, while the intrinsic nature of these elements of reality gets constantly revised.

scholarly journals Scientifically proving God's existence

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
John joseph Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Existence Of God ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Do So

It is possible to scientifically test/prove the existence of an ultimate form of consciousness. However, it is not possible to scientifically conclude whether this supreme form of consciousness, is indeed God (which is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe). Moreover any contention, which seeks to prove the existence of God scientifically, must do so by modifying arguments which have premises that when added together undoubtedly lead to the conclusion that God exists. The premises themselves must be modified, so that they can be tested by the scientific method. It is also implied at the end of this paper, that the methods suggested in this article, could be applied to other areas of philosophy in order to empirically test various ideas.

scholarly journals Emergence: Distracting Notions and How to Get It Right

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Vesterby
Keyword(s):  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
Solar Systems ◽  
Atoms And Molecules ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Material Organization ◽  
Made In

Ever since George Henry Lewes coined the term emergence, various notions have been associated with emergence that have little or nothing to do with emergence itself. These notions distract from the understanding of emergence to such a degree that very little progress was made in over a century of discussion. Emergence is the coming into existence of patterns-of-material-organization as a consequence of motion. The process of emergence plays major roles in the universe, such as the creation of the hierarchic organization of the material universe from quarks, atoms, and molecules to planets, solar systems, and galaxies. Typical discussions about emergence in the literature are about the distracting notions and not actually about emergence itself. This essay has three primary parts. First is discussion of the intrinsic nature of emergence. The second part explains why the distracting notions are not really about emergence. The third part gives an introduction to methods that can provide understanding of the process of emergence.

scholarly journals On the mass of the proton

1931 ◽  
Vol 134 (824) ◽  
pp. 524-532 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Difference ◽  
Preliminary Note ◽  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
First Impression ◽  
The Masses ◽  
The Universe ◽  
The Way

1. This paper develops, and to some extent amends, the theory of the relation of the proton to the electron suggested in a “Preliminary Note on the Masses of the Electron, the Proton, and the Universe.” As explained in that note, my discussion of the constant 137 opened out into a wider investigation embracing other natural constants, and it seemed necessary to pursue this before attempting to perfect the theory of 137. The first result of this extension is contained in a paper on “The Value of the Cosmical Constant.” This is primarily a theory of the mass of an electron; it is satisfactorily confirmed by the observed velocities of recession of the spiral nebulæ, and I think it must be substantially true. But the acceptance of this theory of the electron has the consequence that the relation between the electron and the proton cannot come about quite in the way I had previously had in mind. Indeed, my first impression was that it closed the door to any symmetrical kind of relation between the electron and proton. For my own part, I think it most unlikely that there is any fundamental difference in the intrinsic nature of protons and electrons, and I should regard it as a serious objection to the theory of the cosmical constant if it insisted on such a difference. It is therefore important to show that there is an opening by which the proton is easily brought into the same scheme.

Causality Within Complexity

1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-156
Author(s):  
Nicanor P. G. Austriaco ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Complex Systems ◽  
Scientific Method ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Human Condition ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Philosophy Of Nature ◽  
The World ◽  
Philosophical Framework ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
The Universe

By nature, every man is a philosopher who continuously seeks explanations for both the universe and the human condition. In the modern era, scientific explanations based on the scientific method and its accompanying philosophical framework of quantification, naturalism, and reductionism have obscured other approaches to explaining the world. Curiously, the emerging science of complexity and complex systems is challenging scientists to develop a more holistic approach to nature. The resulting more comprehensive view of nature combines traditional modeling based on the scientific method and empirical verification, complemented by modeling based upon philosophical principles. Aristotle's philosophy of nature suggests a model of complex systems which is both intellectually satisfying and complementary to the mathematical models already in use. The rediscovery of a philosophy of nature would contribute to a holistic worldview, providing a neutral middle ground in the science-religion dialogue.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document