Between modern physics and Aristotelian physics
Hello Rabbi.
I ask as an ignorant person in both modern and ancient physics. It is customary to say that while Aristotle gave a reason for physics that matter “aspires” to return to its source, and this is its “purpose,” physics since Newton does not speak philosophy at all, but mathematics. When Newton describes his laws, he does not describe laws of mechanics that can be given some kind of meaning. No one knew then what gravity was, but they could write it in equations and test it experimentally. In other words, physics is currently not completely understood, but it can be described mathematically and empirically. Science has given up on trying to really understand *why* something happens the way it does, but only deeper attempts at how.
It seems to me that this is only true in the science of physics, in biology there is much more “why”, am I right? Is everything I wrote vain and pessimistic? What does the Rabbi think is the difference between the old and the new physics or is there no difference?
Thank you very much.
You’re mixing different things here. Aristotle used teleological descriptions (through a goal or purpose and not through causes). Modern science sometimes uses a cause and sometimes a purpose (although many scientists think not). But that has nothing to do with mathematics. There is mathematics of purposes and there are non-mathematical descriptions that are causal. Even Aristotle’s theory (at least certain components of it) can be tested in a laboratory, and it’s a shame they didn’t do that because then they would have realized long ago that he was wrong.
The distinction between why and how is not sharp. But it is true that in Aristotle there is more why and less how.
And it is indeed true that in biology there is more to why (teleology). But it is common today to think that this is just a convenient form of description for us, and the truth is causal in biology as well (because at the root of everything is physics).
What is mathematics of purposes?
Functionals, like in analytical mechanics or Fermat's principle. And of course also potentials.
Interesting! I would be happy if you were more explicit. What aspect of purpose is embodied in functionals or potentials and how is it expressed in them?
Just a small emphasis, so that I am not misunderstood. I am intentionally asking about the mathematical terms you mentioned, and not about Fermat's principle or analytical mechanics. The purposefulness of the latter, as ideas in physics, can be discussed separately.
I don't understand the purpose of this discussion, and it seems to me to be a confusion of minds, and probably a troll. These mathematical tools are used in physics in a purposeful sense, and therefore these are not two different questions.
In short, if you are familiar with the subject, then it should be obvious to you and there is no need to explain. If you are not familiar, this is not the place for it.
By the way, I explained this in detail in the first post at the end of the third conversation.
So far.
Your response boils down to ”If you know the subject, you should know that I am right, and if you don't know the subject, it's not worth talking about it with you and here”. Where does this come from? Come on, Dink, not everyone who asks you to explain something is trolling you, and not everything that is clear to you must be clear to everyone else. I have no doubt that you think you are right. You can be sure that I think that there is a lot of truth in what I will write here for the body of the matter, although I will not claim too much confidence in physics. And yet, asking you to explain something where you said it is not a sin or trolling. On the contrary. This is what is supposed to be done in a substantive discussion. If it were not so, then Elam Gross is the glory of intellectualism.
For the body of things, I know the mathematical side of things, and it is not at all clear to me what mathematics has to do with purposiveness. What does the calculus of variations have to do with purposiveness in general and what does functionals and potentials have to do with purposiveness? The connection is not obvious to me, and in the absence of an explanation from you about how you see these things, it will remain not obvious to me. The question of what is purposive mathematics is still on the table.
From the beginning, it was clear to me that physical interpretations of these mathematical terms in certain models of physical phenomena can contain purposive aspects. They can. This must be substantiated. In any case, I tried to put it aside, because you also said something about mathematics and I see no reason to mix up the discussion about mathematics with the discussion about physics.
I will point out that I read the passage in question in the first passage. I will emphasize that if you explained there what purposive mathematics is, it is beyond my understanding. You are welcome to refer me to the relevant page and paragraph where you do so. The book is on the shelf next to me and I will read the things again.
Since it's pretty clear that you're a troll, I'll add one short explanation and that's it.
There are several areas in physics where dynamics can be described using functionals. In quantum theory, but also in classical analytical mechanics, and of course in optics (Fermat's principle). The use of functionals essentially assumes that the physical object “chooses” the path that will lead to the minimal/maximal result of the functional. In this sense, it's a purposive description of dynamics. Teleology is clearly not on the mathematical plane, and I didn't write it either. It's in the use that physics makes of it. But the claim that teleological theories don't have a mathematical toolbox is nonsense. And that's what I wrote. I assume you understood all of this well (if, as you say, you know these physical tools), and you probably just decided to troll. So that's it, I'm done.
Incidentally, causality is not found in mathematics either, but in the interpretation given to it by physicists. Newton's second law, which describes a relationship between acceleration and force, does not determine who is the cause and who is the effector. It is clear to us that force is the cause and acceleration is the effect, but this is only an interpretation of the mathematical equation.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
