Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - Philosophers vs. Physicists
Episode Date: August 12, 2025Curt discusses how philosophy has directly contributed to physics through Bell's theorem, decoherence theory, the hole argument, and more. Meanwhile, via John Norton, we uncover the hidden philosophic...al assumptions in physics that most scientists don’t even realize they’re making. As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. LINKS MENTIONED: - Curt's Substack article: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/p/philosophers-vs-physicists - John Norton [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Tghl6aS5A3M - Neil deGrasse Tyson [TOE]: https://youtu.be/ye9OkJih3-U - How Not to Do Philosophy of Science [article]: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/How_not/How_not.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/gEK4-XtMwro - The Hole Argument: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ - General covariance and general relativity [paper]: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Emily Adlam Λ Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/rw1ewLJUgOg - Eaters of the lotus [paper]: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Eaters_final.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com - John Norton’s profile: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html For further reading on these critiques of instrumentalism: - Hempel (1988) - Oltre il positivismo logico - Popper (1963) - Conjectures and Refutations, Ch. 3 - Deutsch (1997) - The Fabric of Reality #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
Recently, the professor of philosophy and physics John Norton
participated in the podcast.
John assisted my interview with Neil de Gracie Tyson,
in which I defended the philosophy.
So,
of what utility this is for the scientist,
practicant,
even that is of great interest for the philosopher.
The physicists are immersed in philosophy,
even that not know they know.
This is,
a problem?
This is a challenge?
For the professor Norton,
the majority of the physics
has been involved
or assuming
a philosophy.
They only
not know
they're
not quite
you know
that you know
that
some people
don't know
about the
scientists
quite the
orantology
is for the
prospheros
the critic
of John
is perspicas
the orthologists
not are
trying to
be utes
for the
pastoral
now
we're
going to
some
suppositions
philosophicas
peg
the physical
that affirma
that there
no problem
of
there's problem of
mediation in a mecanic because
all what important are the previsions.
Parabins.
You have to endossed a form
extreme of instrumentalism that
the majority of philosophers abandoned
decades back for being logically
insustentable. Norton
saw happen in time real during
my conversation with Nile
and Grace Tyson. For Norton.
The physical that not
does attention to philosophy of science
is probably the victim of a
philosophy meducre. Pense
in this.
Quase, almost
all the scientist
have opinions
about,
well,
what counts
from evidence,
what makes a
a theory
good,
what means
a real?
The nature's
fundamentally
simple or
complexa.
There's uniformity
sufficient in
the nature
for that
the science
commencing
and the
problem of
the induction
disappear,
now they
can say,
but I
don't have
positions
philosophic
about these
things,
I can't
say,
Mano,
aspas,
this is
a position
philosophical,
Mano, and for Norton, probably
is a position defectuosa.
In fact, this was
appointed for Neil Nacara
in his own podcast, Startall.
Your choice is to
leave the side of a world
like this
for that you
can be neutral,
yes, it is a position
philosophic?
Ah, you
were always
less useful
for the fronteer
mobile of the
science physical.
Well, the first
is that I'm
not Iceited
your premise.
The idea of
that what I
need to do
is be useful
for the science
to be important
or valor a
be just to be able to be able to be a
vision very limited.
Norton does a observation that
should be tattooed in the
page of all the departments of physics.
The philosophy of the physics
define its own patterns of success.
What camp?
Can't make that other camp
establishes your own pattern?
Imagine if the orantologists
let's the passers determine
what is considered a good orthology.
Physicos that discardan the
philosophy, for example,
for not be ottoe for them,
is the equivalent intellectual
of a fish.
Discartar the oceanography
because she doesn't
us help to
not addar more
rapid.
The philosophy of
the physics,
a proposit,
really contributed
for the physics,
and not
of a form superficial,
like if she
if she makes
you think
profoundly,
car, but
with contributions
concretes
and citable.
For example,
total the argument,
Roe,
is used in
the gravity
quantica in loop
to criticize
the theory
of the
Chordas.
And then
to these
principles of Coherency of Norton,
which is one of his articles
more cited in a revista
and then there are a critic
the principle of the proprietario
of Terras,
that is about what this podcast
that forceds his proponents
to really think in
their arguments in place
to just presume
that information is equal
a physical,
like ancantament
anagic.
Emily Adam and Jacob
Barendes
described various
cases,
as decoherence and
Theorem of Beaux,
among others, in which philosophers
of physics auxiliated directly
the physical conventional.
I would compare this list of contributions
with many areas of pesquisa contemporaneous in
physics.
It was made in great part
for people who had other
emperings official or who suffered
ramifications significantivas in career
for working in ideas
considered philosophic as much
for the physical conventional.
If someone is thinking
in how obtain the maximum return
of your investment in terms
of contributions to physics,
I would say we need
that we need to invest more in philosophy
of physics.
A proposito,
you want to know
who more is doing
philosophy of physics?
All the physical
that has made smascaro
a theory.
So, when Niu
descartes machines
of movement
perpetual or
dispositives of energy
free,
Niu is to apply
good science.
Of where
these patterns?
The response
comes with Feele
and terminate
with Niu
getting in
defensive.
Now,
we get to
the part
more interesting,
the demolition
of Norton
a part of the Bitt.
Norton probably would probably
would be able to
call upon the phrase
of Wheeler
was a famous phrase of Wheeler
was a certain
type of speculation.
The idea of that
reality is fundamentally
information that,
the the the
are the wordediting
of Norton is that
is a philosophy
of a center.
Because,
well,
because he has
these two types
different of philosophy.
Then,
one is the
philosophy professional
that pegs something
disconcertant
and then
analyza
until
that it
is so
clear
that you
question
because
you're
there's
a philosophy
of a
center
that produce
sabedoria
acromatica
that
seems
interesting
because
not it's
it's
in category
two.
As
Norton
it's
simply
a absurd
to say
that the
world
real
is information
but
Shenon
but the
theory
of information
quantica
but the
an
annunce the CFT,
they say the defender erudito and
desenfreated.
Segure your
cavals olographic.
Usar the information
as a
form a firmament of
unlawful.
In secret,
it's a penitory.
They're just
do this.
Now, if you
want to hear Norton
demolish systematically
the thinking
ruin in
physical,
as a
hypothesis
of simulation,
confier the
episode
complete.
Observe
that the
critical
not is the
information
as a
information
as a
substance
fundamental.
It's
how
say
that
martel
are
utes.
Portant,
the universe
is made
of Home
Deepel.
For
the philosophers,
this is
a form
literal
about
ontology.
So,
what
exists?
For the
physical, many
times it's
a penpte erratic.
In other
words, it's
like a way
to generate
new directions
of research
real is if
this is if it
does both
physical.
And the
avaliation
of Norton
about this
is that
this obsession
for information
in
the fact
failedo
in order
in verse
of this,
it produced
a volume
infinitely
crescent
of
speculations
and
many more
impovable.
Now,
you can
let,
curte,
this is
tolament
tutorial.
If I'm involved in philosophy, then I'm involved in it.
Yes, but if I don't me involve in philosophy, then this in si is me
involve in philosophy.
It's like when the people say, I don't use the rotulus.
Well, this effectively the rotula like the guy who doesn't use rotulus.
Now, this is a reasonable to be thinking.
The problem here is that this is confunding to have suppositions
philosophies with doing philosophy.
Quite everyone has compromises ontological implicit on what exists,
for example, or they have visions
about how he obtains
knowledge of course.
So,
yes, it seems
for the majority
of the people,
in the major part
propositionalement.
The philosophy,
intretanto,
is the exames
of these suppositions,
propositions,
schemes, or what
care that is,
or you are
explicit as,
you test a
coerence,
you explore
your implications.
The physical
that says
to calar a
book and
calculate not
not is
doing
he's just
only se recusing to examine
their suppositions
instrumentalists.
This not is tautological.
It's the difference
between
talking English and
study linguistica.
The physicists
ador don't
declare their
work empiric,
but they
know where
come this term?
The empirists
were a
seita medical
marginal in
antiquity.
So,
for about
of 1,700,
the empirists
were routinely
ridicularized
as charlatans
medics.
Every way
a physical
orgulosomely
is declared
empirista
in quite
discarta
the philosophia
in some
place of
a multiverse
a Jacob
Barendes
perde
his function
of a
onda.