RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 21, 2022 at 11:39 am
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2022 at 11:44 am by GrandizerII.)
(February 21, 2022 at 9:40 am)polymath257 Wrote: The story about Hume and Einstein actually exemplifies my point: philosophy is best when it looks at hidden assumptions and NOT when it is making grand theories. Hume noted that our assumptions about time may not be correct and Einstein actually came up with a scientific theory that gave a new way of looking at time.
Exactly. When it comes to science, philosophy provides the direction, the framework, and science then does the rest.
Remember what I said earlier, that philosophy is not in competition with science, and yet you keep falling into that trap of thinking it's supposed to be (otherwise, in your mind, it's pointless when it comes to metaphysics and science).
Quote:And, your last point that physicists have been the ones making up the interpretations is also to my point: philosophy is getting to be too hard for the philosophers. The physicists are actually the ones pushing the philosophical envelope. But the physicists also acknowledge that the differences between the interpretations are not very relevant: they all give exactly the same answers concerning observations so *they are all actually the same theory*. Sort of like the difference between Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics. The point is that some perspectives suggest ways to actually do the calculations.
Unless you have a survey to prove your what you say here, this is your subjective take of what physicists think when it comes to philosophy and specifically metaphysics. I can think of a good number of physicists who favor certain interpretations of quantum mechanics over others and do not treat them all equally in terms of credibility. Furthermore, these interpretations do reveal significant theoretical differences. For example, under the MWI there is no wavefunction collapse but under the Copenhagen there is. Under the former, the world is deterministic, whereas under the latter, the world is random. These are significant differences, so to say these interpretations are all actually the same theory is misleading.
And it's great that some physicists out there are not averse to doing some metaphysics. Seems to take some guts these days to do.