A Philosophy of Physics

The speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. To me, this looks like an absolute, or rather the closest thing we have that can be
called absolute. This philosophical idea is confirmed by physics, not refuted. In fact, it's the base axiom of SR!
If it turns out that physics cannot be completed, closed, and all we ever will have is incomplete theories that are only valid within
a certain domain, as I suspect, how are we going to approach the subject further?
If we accept incompleteness of physics theory as a base axiom, trudging along on the high energy physics path is senseless; Its domain of validity is too small.
It would then be better to select the best physics theories and concepts that seem to contain the deepest philosophical wisdom; Have the largest domain of validity.
Hence, let there be Light!
This anti-philosophy attitude physicists seem to have nowadays really needs to disappear; I have a theory on this; I think it has something to do with
the fact that all philosophical interpretations of QM are nonsensical.

I argue this here :

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/pure-chance-question.843334/

Hi,
Welcome to the forum.

When philosophy make testable predictions then it can take place in physics discussions.

the incompleteness of theory is an issue you have with reality, there are constraints that the models of theory and language have.

I say this to not be mean, yet...

So what? If you have a problem with high energy physics, what is it in specific?

TheAdversary said:

The speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. To me, this looks like an absolute, or rather the closest thing we have that can be called absolute

Click to expand...

That would be wrong, TheAdversary. This Special Relativity postulate is that the speed of light in vacuum is the same in any inertial frame of reference. This is a physics idea. Einstein was a mathematical physicist not a philosopher !

P.S. This is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread, not the "philosophical word salad" thread or the "imaginary anti-philosophy attitude physicists" thread.

'When philosophy make testable predictions then it can take place in physics discussions.'

I approach the subject of physics differently; It keeps my philosophical thought straight so I can safely, as far as can be, extrapolate to the philosophical.
It's a enormously useful correction mechanism for thought. However, lately, it has been getting more and more difficult to actually perform those experiments.
High Energy Physics is especially susceptible to this. What comes after the Large Hadron Collider? The Large Spaghetti Monster Solar System Wide String Detector?
That's my problem with it; You can no longer perform those experiments! Hence, we need something else ...

'That would be wrong, TheAdversary. This Special Relativity postulate is that the speed of light in vacuum is the same in any inertial frame of reference.
This is a physics idea. Einstein was a mathematical physicist not a philosopher.'

Adding extra complications you just thought of doesn't help us to discern what the real basic principles are. That's just obfuscation.
The light gets slowed down by the interaction with particles, sure, but that's not what I would call a fundamental idea, like invariance.
Relativity is just the application of Noether's Theorem in a Minkowski Space. Those are examples of fundamental ideas, for example.
Maybe it just needs a philosopher to extrapolate them. Neither of those theories were developed by Einstein also; I'd say he was much more of a philosophical guy
who made the connections. Mainly by sitting in his room, thinking, and smoking his pipe.

I have another philosophical thought; What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster Problem, see previous post, basically practically proofs, with the full rigour required by a sound
scientific experiment (and thus necessarily leaving some uncertainty) that the High Energy Physics direction is just a no go area?

TheAdversary said:

I have another philosophical thought...

Click to expand...

I have some real advice, TheAdversary: flooding a science thread with random, irrelevant thoughts about non-science is likely to be reported and so is not good behavior.

I have been impolite before, sure, but not without meaning. But this entire discussion has been entirely polite. Report me, in this case, for what?
It's not random; It's a well-formulated argument. I think you just don't like it. But, I'll leave now if you want ...

TheAdversary said:

Report me, in this case, for what?

Click to expand...

For flooding a science thread with random, irrelevant, badly formulated thoughts about non-science, TheAdversary.
ETA: It is part of the membership usage agreement that you agreed to that posts be appropriate to the section in which they are posted. Philosophical musings are not appropriate for the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread. That is why moderators sometimes move inappropriate posts from one section to another.

ETA: And here we are in the proper section !

It's obviously not random. What is it with you people and misinterpreting randomness?
Irrelevant? Science is based on experiment. If experiments cannot be performed any more, nothing can be confirmed by experiment. And then it's non-science, unless you want to abandon
experiment. Clear? And there are good theoretical, purely mathematical, reasons for assuming that physics theory stops when it reaches the undefinability of pure chance, as I
argue on Physics Forums. The problem is that I suspect that a lot of you people are incapable of understanding chance properly.
Badly formulated? It might look verbose, but that's just because I like to formulate air-tight arguments, as far as can be in reason.
Non-science? Science abandoning experiment sounds like non-science to me! And then veiled threats when someone mentions this even ... are you threatening me Master Jedi?

TheAdversary said:

'When philosophy make testable predictions then it can take place in physics discussions.'

I approach the subject of physics differently; It keeps my philosophical thought straight so I can safely, as far as can be, extrapolate to the philosophical.
It's a enormously useful correction mechanism for thought. However, lately, it has been getting more and more difficult to actually perform those experiments.
High Energy Physics is especially susceptible to this. What comes after the Large Hadron Collider? The Large Spaghetti Monster Solar System Wide String Detector?
That's my problem with it; You can no longer perform those experiments! Hence, we need something else ...

Click to expand...

Yup its generally called astronomy, difficulty of experimentation does not give a free pass to philosophy

Have you actually read what I said? This 'testable predictions' or 'experimental verification' argument is just hypocrisy when I'm the one calling you out on the lack of
experimental verification in the first place. Try coming up with an argument that actually has some content next time!
Science without experimental verification isn't science; That means you're in the same boat as the philosophers you despise so heartily. Understand? See the problem? Hello ... anybody in there?

TheAdversary said:

Have you actually read what I said? This 'testable predictions' or 'experimental verification' argument is just hypocrisy when I'm the one calling you out on the lack of
experimental verification in the first place. Try coming up with an argument that actually has some content next time!
Science without experimental verification isn't science; That means you're in the same boat as the philosophers you despise so heartily. Understand? See the problem? Hello ... anybody in there?

Click to expand...

But it's not just "experimental verification" is it? There's observation as well. Even when I do an experiment, I am just observing what happens. The point of the experiment is to make it easier to make those observations, but I can still observe things without experimenting/controlling them.

I think we probably have a different idea of what science is all about, and how one might go about it.

Yes. And I 'observe' this :

I have another philosophical thought; What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster Problem, see previous post, basically practically proofs, with the full rigour required by a sound
scientific experiment (and thus necessarily leaving some uncertainty) that the High Energy Physics direction is just a no go area?

Do you agree that this, in itself, might already provide enough evidence?

TheAdversary said:

Yes. And I 'observe' this :

I have another philosophical thought; What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster Problem, see previous post, basically practically proofs, with the full rigour required by a sound
scientific experiment (and thus necessarily leaving some uncertainty) that the High Energy Physics direction is just a no go area?

Do you agree that this, in itself, might already provide enough evidence?

Click to expand...

Yes and no. It would be a balance between the two, a kind of scientific controversy which typically spawns even more research. It is certainly possible, and I'd even say likely, that we will run out of the ability to "look" long before we run out of things we'd like to look at.

But it's a problem that solves itself. So long as I have a theoretical structure which matches everything I can observe, then the job is done. All and any further theoretical constructs would have to meet the same standard. We'd probably go with whichever one was easiest to teach students.

TheAdversary said:

Have you actually read what I said? This 'testable predictions' or 'experimental verification' argument is just hypocrisy when I'm the one calling you out on the lack of
experimental verification in the first place. Try coming up with an argument that actually has some content next time!
Science without experimental verification isn't science; That means you're in the same boat as the philosophers you despise so heartily. Understand? See the problem? Hello ... anybody in there?

Click to expand...

I read what you said, and I asked you in specific what issue do you have with particle physics?

You did not give specifics, you did say:

High Energy Physics is especially susceptible to this. What comes after the Large Hadron Collider? The Large Spaghetti Monster Solar System Wide String Detector?

Click to expand...

To which I replied that astronomy will suffice for higher energies, however you seem to have confused particle physics with somethings.

So answer what in specific is your issue with particle physics?

And your assumptions about my views on philosophy show an amazing lack of knowledge on your part, and a large amount of poor guesswork.

TheAdversary said:

Yes. And I 'observe' this :

I have another philosophical thought; What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster Problem, see previous post, basically practically proofs, with the full rigour required by a sound
scientific experiment (and thus necessarily leaving some uncertainty) that the High Energy Physics direction is just a no go area?

Do you agree that this, in itself, might already provide enough evidence?

Click to expand...

Maybe you could reiterate your proof for us here on this forum, in this place and time?