[lit-ideas] Re: knowledge and belief briefly
- From: "Richard Henninge" <RichardHenninge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:22:45 +0100
Let's get this straight: Newtonian physics (Np) is "[f]alse. False.
False-false-false. False as false can be," according to Donal.
Then consider this: of recent memory, Chinese physicists managed to launch a
rocket from the surface of the earth carrying as payload, among other things, a
lunar rover-type vehicle, cameras and various other pieces of scientific
equipment, and managed to land that payload in operating condition on the
surface of the moon. Wittgenstein famously said in the first proposition of the
Tractatus Logico-philosophicus that "[t]he world is everything that is the
case." As a thought experiment, imagine everything that had to be the case from
an hour before blast-off to an hour after the landing. Picture it to yourself
as a sort of three-dimensional cartoon along the actual timeline of the days on
which the actual events occurred. Imagine that every piece of equipment could
be modeled to be as close to functionally identical to the equipment that was
actually used. Or, what is practically-speaking the same thing, simply imagine
the actual equipment that was actually used.
Now, the physics that was used to do all that or that would have to be used to
repeat it, is, I suggest, consistent with or identical with what Donal labels
as that "false-false-false" Newtonian physics. Np is not only "partially true,
or true under certain conditions"; there are only extremely limited
circumstances in which it doesn't "hold" (I would prefer to say)
apparently--subatomically, i.e. below the order of magnitude of the atom and in
relation to objects in motion at or approaching the speed of light. I doubt if
any of the scientists on the project or involved in a future similar endeavor
to the moon or Mars is even, nor need be, conversant with Eddington's results
or relativity theory or quantum physics. Proof enough of this would be to see
whether any correction reflecting twentieth-century physical "discoveries" is
reflected in the computer programs used to carry out such a feat.
Wittgenstein, the "Austrian engineer," worked on kites and a newly invented
jet-propulsion engine. All he needed to explain that was Newtonian physics.
There comes a point at which one realizes that, analogous to the world inside
the atom, the "revolutionary impact on philosophy [of, say, Eddington's
findings] via Popper's philosophy of science and theory of knowledge," is truly
a "tempest in a (tiny, tiny) teacup" of practically irrelevant, wrong-headed
philosophizing of the worst stripe, perhaps in particular in the philosophy of
science and theory of knowledge, well worthy of Wittgenstein's Golden Poker
Award.
Richard Henninge
University of Mainz
So one experimental result that is incompatible with Newtonian physics (where
that physics makes claims that hold throughout the whole physical universe), is
enough to show Np is false – not merely “partially false” and not merely so we
can claim Np is nevertheless “at least partially true, or true under certain
conditions”. False. False. False-false-false. False as false can be.
This is why Eddington’s experiments were so important. There was more at
stake than merely showing that Newton’s physics was now only “partially true,
or true under certain conditions”. What Eddington’s results appeared to show
was that the Newtonian physics under test was false. That meant that physics
was false even in the myriad cases where it was proven consistent with the
experimental outcome.
Now that is something with potentially revolutionary impact on the direction
of scientific theorising, testing and research. It also had a revolutionary
impact on philosophy via Popper's philosophy of science and theory of knowledge.
Donal
Other related posts:
