[PREV - LOGICAL_LANGUAGE] [TOP]
CERTAINTY
January 16, 2019
Richard Feynman, in his series of lectures
collected as "The Character of Physical Law"
compares mathematics and physics, making the
point that the mathematician typically goes Elsewhere-- I think in
after a very general, very abstract conversation with Freeman
understanding, but the physicist is typically Dyson-- Feynman argued
interested in a very specific case that's for working with physical
more grounded in reality. He argues that for intuition rather than just
the physicist, the words they use have very taking a purely mathematical
definite meanings and that's sometimes missed approach, suggesting that
by people who come to physics from the elder Einstein had
mathematics. wasted a lot of time on
this without much result.
In some places in these lectures he
emphasizes that physicists have learned
not to trust their intuition about what
seems reasonable but rather to settle He makes the point that
issues through experiment-- in other science can't possibly
places he seems to be placing emphasis achieve absolute
on the need to develop physical certainty, if only
intuition, to make guesses-- because of these issues
with range of application.
Theories are tested
in very specific
Newton's understanding of gravity had a ways-- general
wide range of application, explaining confirmation under
both the behavior of falling bodies, and every possible
the movements of celestial objects-- it circumstance is an
worked so well that an apparent impossibility.
discrepancy with astronomical data was
resolved by assuming that Newton was The scientist
right, and light did not travel must make guesses
instantaneously, but rather moved at a about what
certain speed which could now be experimental
measured. Other discrepancies led to the conditions are
discovery of new planets as we inferred important.
that there must be other gravitational
sources in play. Mathematicians
are more reluctant
It was a surprise that there are to give up on
extreme cases where the behavior of the that dream of
real world differs from classical absolute truths.
physics-- discrepancies in the orbit of
Mercury requires something like General
Relativity to understand. Science: uncertain but real,
Math: certain but ideal.
So: should the experimentalists have
qualified their understanding, MATHISM
specifying the range of energy and
velocity the results were known to be
good for? But how would you know that
energy or velocity was the key? What
about, say the material of the objects "If you thought that science
involved, or the time of day or the was certain-- well, that is
time of the year, or the feelings of just an error on your part."
the experimenter, or any number of
other circumstantial features that Richard P. Feynman
*might've* turned out to be important?
"The Quotable Feynman", p.349,
Princeton University Press
In the beginning was the guess. [link]
--------
[NEXT - LINGUISTOLOGY]