Category: philosophy

“It is usual to call an inference ‘inductive’ if it passes from singular statements (sometimes also called ‘particular’ statements), such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypotheses or theories.
Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.”

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

This week’s readings on science, physics & thinking: 

  1. The Thoughts of a Spiderweb, Joshua Sokol
  2. The Inflated Debate Over Cosmic Inflation, Amanda Gefter

  3. The Art of Knowing What to Do in Life, Maria Popova

  4. Black Holes, Ali Sundermier
  5. The Physicist Who Denies Dark Matter, Oded Carmeli

  6. LIGO Spots Gravitational Waves for Third Time, Davide Castelvecchi

  7. The Future of Zero-Gravity Living Is Here, Charles Fishman

  8. First Private Company to Attempt Moon Landing, Jay Bennett

This week’s readings on science, physics & thinking:

  1. How Does Life Come From Randomness?, David Kaplan

  2. Is Our Universe the Only Universe?, Brian Greene
  3. The Source of Richard Feynman’s Genius, Maria Popova

  4. Physicists Uncover Geometric ‘Theory Space’

    Natalie Wolchover

  5. The Woman the Mercury Astronauts Couldn’t Do Without, Margot Lee Shetterly

  6. The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution, Natalie Wolchover

  7. A Theory of Consciousness Can Help Build a Theory of Everything, George Musser

  8. What Could Dark Matter Be?, Laura Dattaro

Comments of the Week #158: from event horizons to time travel

From Frank on proving Einstein wrong: “I had read somewhere that one time a reporter said to Einstein “There are hundred professors who say you are wrong.”
Einstein answered “If I was really wrong just one professor would be enough.””

Is time travel real, or even better, inevitable? We’ve got a new podcast for you to check out! In addition, don’t miss out on all the bonus science available this week, on topics from scientific activism to relativity to black holes, planetary masses, and how philosophy can lead you away from scientific discovery if you adhere to your notions of “logic” too steadfastly.

Come take a journey into the greatest in-depth discussions available this week about the hottest science topics on this edition of our Comments of the Week!

Interesting question; although I’ve never read his work on the implicate order, i’ve only read stuff other people mentioned about it here and there. I think it’s a philosophically interesting idea. Idk, from what I know about his theory, my question would be, if in the implicate scale of things space and time have no meaning, then what are the degrees of freedom by which we can “think” about that scale? How do you reason without a cause-effect relationship between objects? Also I guess that since we don’t have any convincing way of making a quantum theory of gravity, some implicate nature could still be possible… This is all maybe too philosophical for me

“Behind the cotton wool is hidden a pattern; that we—I mean all human beings—are connected with this; that the whole world is a work of art; that we are parts of the work of art […] But there is no Shakespeare, there is no Beethoven; certainly and emphatically there is no God; we are the words; we are the music; we are the thing itself.”

Virginia Woolf, Moments of Being

Currently reading Albert Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” and “The Character of Physical Law” by Richard Feynman while taking notes with my absolutely Great Space Pen.