Discussion
Request for links.
I wonder how Real Scientists™ think about the evolution of natural law. For example, it seems to me meaningless to speak of Newton’s laws of motion during the quark–gluon plasma stage of the universe. (You remember: the period up to about age one-millionth of a second). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma (1/4)
But do scientists think of Newton’s laws as *inevitable* (which would seem to mean they exist or are real before they have any matter to grab hold of)? Or do they think things could have shaken out differently, such that different laws might have occurred by chance, much like we lucked into a matter-dominant universe and random fluctuations produced its large scale structure way down the line? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Electron-positron_annihilation (2/4)
@marick I doubt there's a single view shared by all, or even most, Real Scientists. Moreover, it's a metaphysical question, and most scientists don't think much about metaphysics most of the time.
@khinsen Yes. It’s weird that physicists in the early 20th century were into metaphysics. (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” is a metaphysical claim, and Mach seemed to be someone people paid attention to. The big fuss that led to the Copenhagen interpretation was a fundamentally metaphysical one. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691183527/philosophy-of-physics)
It’s interesting to wonder how metaphysics drained out of physics. Copenhagen interpretation? The atom bomb making metaphysical questions beside the point?
@marick I hope that historians have worked on these questions! I can only offer a guess:
Research environments changed completely after WWII, not just because of the atomic bomb. Governments started pouring money into research to encourage economic growth. Physics left its "natural philosophy" origins to become the research branch of engineering.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
