Physicists On Philosophy
You would never want a “STEM” major to wax philosophical on the philosophy of ethics, politics, aesthetics, or metaphysics. What you would want them to discuss, and more often than not do in the “theoretical physics” space, is “logic” and “epistemology.”
Topics which inevitably lead down the path of discussing “consciousness” and the use of “symbolic systems.” What I have here is a set of video snippets I found on some physicists talking philosophy.
Ramanujan & His Goddess
Mathematicians count as well. The story of Ramanujan is what motivated me to write out the post.
It’s compelling and says something about the nature of mathematical thinking and reasoning. Ramanujan received brilliant mathematical formulae and theorems through “intuition” via a Goddess. He only wished to use math to express “thoughts” of Namagiri.
The story chips at the notion that math is simply “objective” and that there is no place for “intuition” or “subjectivity” when it comes to doing math.
David Bohm on “Thoughts”
In the video, David Bohm talks about the dangers of the “illusory self.” He discusses the fact that our mind creates a “self” and acts as that “self” is the one generating thoughts.
“To understand the mind, one must be aware of its conditioning.”
Krishnamurti
These concepts highlight the point of recognizing our “conscious” and “unconsciousness” separated from “thought.”
Feynman on Knowing and Understanding
“Two theories A & B which look completly different psychologically, but all the computed consequences are the same”
Feynman
The best example of what Feynman is saying comes from Physics itself. Take the difference between the “Newtonian” and “Quantum” physics. At the face of it, the mathematical formulae for each theory are seemingly different. Each “theory” has a different syntax, but for “most” predictions made, they are both empirically the same.
As Feynman says, “the ideas are different”, but they all tend to approximate the same “image.” There are 1000+ spoken languages in the globe and they all equivalentlly speak of the same world.
Penrose on “Formalism” vs “Intuitionism”
The question of Math being “discovered” or “invented” is always a heated one. The best answer is “both”, and frankly whoever believes fully in one over the over has a very specific agenda.
Mathematics is clearly invented in the sense we create symbols, notations, and formal systems. Yet at the same time, once those systems are in place, we seem to “discover” truths within them that we didn’t anticipate.
Again, comparing it to a spoken “language”, it’s not like we created our physical reality, moreso give name to it. Similarly, when we write “1+1=2” in Math, it refers to our “experience.”