Blackboard Rumble: Why Are Physicists Hating On Philosophy (and Philosophers)?

• Blackboard Rumble: Why Are Physicists Hating On
  • At stake is a critical question living deep inside the heart of modern foundational physics: What are the limits of science?
  • Krauss invokes quantum field theory (QFT) and relies on its definition of nothing as the one that matters. Quantum fields are nature's most basic entity within the framework of modern physics. One of the coolest things about QFT's perspective is that all matter particles (quarks, electrons, etc.) are simply a manifestation or "configuration" of these background fields. Thus "nothing" from a quantum-field-theory perspective is nothing more a state of the field without particles.
  • Krauss was arguing that these "no particle" field states are (1) possible as a pre-condition for our universe and (2) inherently unstable. If you start with a universe with fields in a no-particle state — i.e., nothingness — then the laws of quantum mechanics allow them to spontaneously jump to configurations with lots of particles — i.e., something-ness.
  • David Albert was having none of it. As he correctly points out: Where do the fields come from? Better yet: Where do the laws of quantum mechanics come from?
  • over the last few decades, cosmology and foundational physics have become dominated by ideas that that appear to take a page from science fiction and, more importantly, remain firmly untethered to data.
  • Concepts like hidden dimensions of reality (string theory) or hidden infinite possible parallel universes (the multiverse) are radical revisions of the very concept of reality. Since detailed contact with experimental data might be decades away, theorists have relied mainly on mathematical consistency and "aesthetics" to guide their explorations. In light of these developments, it seems absurd to dismiss philosophy as having nothing to do with their endeavors.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.