This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Metaphysical dark energy and matter

20 posts in this topic

Posted

Now that scientists humbly acknowledge that we know less than 10% of the universe, how can the philosophical community help in drawing out a metaphysical reality to render the vision of dark energy and dark matter clearer? Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether or not we can take part in the new revolution of physics by laying out the metaphysical side of the equation, or at least contributing as much as possible? I have worked out some ideas on this topic and will post them after I see we have some participation in this thread. Of course anyone can interject here and direct the dialogue in productive ways. Let us work together to conceptually work hand in hand with our scientific family.

regards, Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, the problem with metaphysics is when you try to speak of things that are outside of our knowledge, or outside of anyone's knowledge. Dark matter, as I understand it, just means that from that part of the universe that we can detect from the radiation it emits, that it is being affected gravitationally by part of the universe that doesn't emit radiation. Metaphysically, there isn't anything to say because there is an epistemological barrier. When astronomers speak of dark matter, they just mean that there is matter that they don't know much about. And this is probably always going to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Now that scientists humbly acknowledge that we know less than 10% of the universe...

I don't think this is correct, so i'm going to bite and ask you what do you mean "know?"

Because according to the size of galaxies and the amount of visible matter, something else is unaccounted for, in order to maintain the gravitational forces that keep the visible material from drifting or flying apart. Visible matter account for 10 percent of the matter in this universe, so your claim that scientists "know" less than 10 percent is a bit misleading. The inference that there exists "dark" matter is not the limit of epistemology, so perhaps your wording is confused and needs to be clarified.

Metaphysicians make poor scientists, and vice versa, by the way, so there is no need for incompetents trying their hand at what they cannot do well. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The dark matter/energy hypothesis is far from certain. Look here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well, by metaphysics I had in mind Kripke's essentialism. We could, I suppose, determine what the essential properties of a certain star is by constructing physical models and determining what conditions are necessary for the star to be prevented from going supernova, as an example. But with dark matter, all we really know is that a certain amount of mass is unaccounted for. This is hardly enough to determine what it's essential properties are. This is what I meant by epistemological barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Parody of Language

it, just means that from that part of the universe that we can detect from the radiation it emits, that it is being affected gravitationally by part of the universe that doesn't emit radiation.

Campanella

claim that scientists "know" less than 10 percent is a bit misleading.

You are both right here. I was hoping to get something started. If one presents ideas incorrectly, there is a greater chance here to draw people in thus creating an engaging dialogue. Either way, I do not feel that we are epistemologically limited. The only limitation here is the lack of a creative mind.

Metaphysicians make poor scientists, and vice versa,

Tell this to the string theorists. The problem with science today on the grand scale of cosmology and unified theory is that scientists cannot make the necessary leaps needed to produce such a theory without swimming in metaphysical waters. The ultimate theory of the universe will always be superseded by the revelation of a more subtle and more intimate quality of reality. For example dark energy is present and demonstrating its over whelming presence in the cosmos. But, unless the scientists create (I stress the word create) a metaphysical explanation of this reality how can they render it as knowledge, much more science? Science consists of math and metaphysics. The art of explaning the math requires metaphysics, and vise versa.

In order to push science further we must look at physics in general and seduce out complementary explanations of the universe through metaphysical leaps and mathematical theories. Of course this is all in my humble opinion. So, as of this time I would like to leave and see what our collective mind speaks from the individuals interested. If I am out of line or breaking rules please discipline me my dear friend Hugo (or any one else for that matter)!

regards, Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Probably philosophy is good for analizing concepts. For introducing concepts, Art, literature and movies are better. When scientist and philosophers introduce concepts, they are doing so as amateur artists.

Some questions:

Are dark energy and dark matter issues different, and if so, by how they are different from other issues that the philosophy of science is dealing with, like quantums, power force & weak force, Einstein's relativity, body&spirit, and so on?

Before we discuss dark energy and dark matter, do we all agree with matter and energy?

I only know 5.6% of the universe, can someone tip me the other 4.4%, so I can participate this discussion equaly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The only limitation here is the lack of a creative mind.

You mean a receptive audience.

Tell this to the string theorists.

Indeed, they, as well as the quantum theoreticians, have been swimming in metaphysical waters, which is what Ernst Mach identified as mythological ones.

Yet I was referring to scientists who intended to do philosophy outright, as well as philosophers doing science themselves.

Its no surprise that the core of positivism, the theory of verification came from physicists (schlick did his dissertation in physics under planck), theoretical physicists (carnap, frank), mathematicians (han, mengers, godel) an economist (neurath) all guided by the spirit-animal of the engineer (wittgenstein).

Its also no surprise that not a week after Hegel proved by logical deduction that there must be only 7 planets, an 8th was discovered. :lol:

But I agree physics is already tainted with philosophical blood, after the death of mechanism in late 19th century, and the rise of quantum physics. Blandshard was right that the physicist could no longer poke fun at the mote in the philosopher's eye cuz he already has a metaphysical beam stuck in his own.

The problem with science today on the grand scale of cosmology and unified theory is that scientists cannot make the necessary leaps needed to produce such a theory without swimming in metaphysical waters. The ultimate theory of the universe will always be superseded by the revelation of a more subtle and more intimate quality of reality.

This assertion is speculation, and seems to be self-serving.

For example dark energy is present and demonstrating its over whelming presence in the cosmos. But, unless the scientists create (I stress the word create) a metaphysical explanation of this reality how can they render it as knowledge, much more science?

Haven't you read the supplied link to the pdf file that argues against the postulation of dark matter?

Why should the scientist resort to metaphysical explanation of reality? He should be satisfied with his theoretical speculation according to the ruling principles of his discipline, or make new ruling principles in doing so, and leave the metaphysical implications to the philosophers. When a major crossover ensues, hilarity is the result, and that's free material for the comedians.

Science consists of math and metaphysics. The art of explaning the math requires metaphysics, and vise versa.

What do you mean by "metaphysics?"

The following has equal validity:

Art consists of nature and culture. The nature of art requires culture, and vice versa.

In order to push science further we must look at physics in general and seduce out complementary explanations of the universe through metaphysical leaps and mathematical theories. Of course this is all in my humble opinion.

Indeed, Godel had whacky ideas for time travel when he studied einstein's theories. How about those attempts at philosophy in Stephen Hawking's Brief history of Time? The many examples of scientists trying to pose as philosophers turns out unintentionally comic and, in the end, tragic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Indeed, Godel had whacky ideas for time travel when he studied einstein's theories. How about those attempts at philosophy in Stephen Hawking's Brief history of Time? The many examples of scientists trying to pose as philosophers turns out unintentionally comic and, in the end, tragic.

Why, though, are Godel's ideas about time travel so whacky? An interesting discussion of Godel and Einistein may be found here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Speaking of unintentionally comic:

Probably philosophy is good for analizing concepts.

Priceless :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Speaking of unintentionally comic...

If it wasn't for Mark Ellis and Maddox, i'd be singing Eli's virtues as a comic:

I only know 5.6% of the universe, can someone tip me the other 4.4%, so I can participate this discussion equaly?

Great stuff. Anyway, er... no more derails, please, sayeth the derailing admin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Following hard upon Campanella's note, yesterday an even more mundane explanation of 'dark matter' was proposed: unadorned general relativity. If Cooperstock and Tieu are correct, general relativity can account for the supposed discrepancy between a galaxy's mass and its rotation speed. This discrepancy has been a prime motivator for 'dark matter' theories.

(Note: The relativistic theory has not yet accounted for mass/speed discrepancies among clusters of galaxies.)

Here's the link: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/051010_dark_matter.html

All the best,

Wayne Stewart

http://mbdefault.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The dark matter/energy hypothesis is far from certain. Look here.

Just a note, that paper doesn't say anything at all about dark energy, only dark matter. It is even hard to argue the paper says all that much about dark matter; it seeks to replace an unknown source of mass with incomplete descriptions of gravity.

The paper that really made waves recently was the one wsterwart linked, though it seems to have already had some excellent arguments made against it. It, too, says nothing about dark energy.

When Da Fire writes "For example dark energy is present.." and you reply with "Haven't you read the supplied link to the pdf file that argues against the postulation of dark matter?" I wonder if you are fully aware of the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Red dwarfs increase star total threefold

A substantial population of low-mass stars in luminous elliptical galaxies

Quote from article:

"making up over 80% of the total number of stars and contributing more than 60% of the total stellar mass."

I have recently read about this find. This has made me wonder how this will effect the debate about the 'amount' of dark matter needed to fill in the equations for the current perspective necessary for gravity to hold the galaxy together. Anyone have any thing to add, or links or anything?

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Some comments..This is a really cool topic and discussion..I am not a theoretical physicist, but when I have the time I like to acquaint myself as much as possible....For me as a writer most of the most interesting or novel thoughts, info,discoveries..come from that sphere...where as lit, music, poetry seem to have left for the most part..as far as I can tell, the age of discovery...From what I have heard of Dark matter is that it is no longer 'Dark Matter' but a phenomenon previously observed that is now known to be created by non-baryonic matter...What the blip that means...f!5e if I know...But it is an example of how thought and theory have uncovered a genuinely new dimension in our data cosmos..Much as say a Euclid or Reimman had in there rigourous filling out of the respective math proofs of the types of space they were discovering and in a sense creating....(An interesting aside is that Archimedes gave the door and proofs for his discoveries but not 'how' he arrived there...He found that each students endeavors successful or not revealed nuances and differences in the approach having an overall affect on the proof and theory and tradition...) This is to a great extent what Signor Galileo was up to...when he unveiled the science of dynamics based on Copernicus's work...., but he couched it in a way that was accessible to anyone...writing one of the most spectacular dialogues literary or scientific....He in a sense exported or imported the stuff Copernicus did, thus bringing to bear the new discoveries on his age and future generations. One guy who does a nice lecture on the gap between science and literature and consequences is C.P. Snow in his 'The Two Cultures'...Anyways just some thoughts...everyone have a nice day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Castellian: The philosophical community is not in the business of making anything clearer; they are in the business of lying and cheating their way to fame and fortune – that’s competition for you. And in any case, you would be wasting your time because all this science is so much hogwash and the truth is something quite else – and the same goes for philosophy. So philosophers trying to render science clearer is merely a matter of the blind leading the blind. As to working “hand in hand” with one’s scientific family – family? You have to be kidding! It’s a dog-eat-dog family. It’s your worst nightmare family. In fact, when philosophers talk of rendering a vision of some scientific theory clearer, what it is actually about is that philosophers have recognised that they have lost ground to physicists in the academic stakes and are trying to grab hold of the scientists’ coat tails in order to recover some of their own status.

Going back to the start of your post, when scientists “humbly acknowledge”, there’s nothing humble about it; this is merely a sort of false humility which actually has the effect of raising the status of the claimant. This site is full of such false humility. It has that veneer of reasonableness, benignity and paternalism that was first honed to perfection by the priests of earlier religions, but which is entirely un-natural and hides a rather more lethal intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Would it be reasonable for us to assume that you dislike both science and philosophy? If so, please clarify your position, and then tell us what alternatives there are, which one/s you believe to be best, and why.

Try to make them as unscientific and unphilosophical as possible. :deal:

BTW, you are entirely right about this site hiding a lethal intention, but when you go sharing your genius with other forums, don't tell them - it's a secret :sneaky::stab::eyebrows:

Edited by DaveT
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

:heh:

Hey, Dragon, maybe you'd like to lecture us again on how "there was no experimental evidence to suggest that quantum theory was necessary or that classical theory was in any way deficient." Or have you actually done some studying since making that completely erroneous statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Davidm, Dragon is less of a communicator, and more of a preacher who sermonizes. He is here only to tell us how to think, or demand us to think a certain way, as opposed to draw us into the process of thinking as an active participant, as in a discussion. Where true Galileans address each other as thinkers or participants in the process of thought, Dragon privileges himself strongly as if he embodies the truth.

The Galilean Library is an active audience of readers who desires encounters with ideas. But Dragon thinks he alone has grasped the truth, and we are merely passive receptacles of his truth. :preach:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dragon, have you noticed the section on 'history and philosophy of science'? Can you explain how and/or where science and philosophy part (maybe I missed the clarity of your comments)? Can you offer a reason, based on logic and/or rational, that says my idea is non-sensical? Just wondering because criticism without solution is just ranting, and probably not well thought out philosophy.

I can tell you that the company of members here makes it very difficult to pass one self off as a real philosopher, especially if your armchair philosophy looks like shattered glass instead of something organized. :boink:

Regarding the idea of truth, I am pretty sure no one here believes 'truth' is somehow contained in science or philosophy, and/or any other system of understanding reality.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0