the science-philosophy of Modeling (the universe) to find "Truth"???

MKsurvivin

Member
I am interested in this general topic, in that in general, in science, the experimentalist spends his life making reproducible "measurements" of some sort, and then shaping them in some way, like pieces in a jigsaw puzle, into a pre-known but developing model of scientific truth. 400+ years of physical science uses a basic model where "masses" are acted upon by mathematically defined fundamental "forces", which become semi mathematical entities that act over light years, but always between "masses"...Yes this is a great model for many applications (like killing terrorists at great distances with projectile masses)..but

the universe is vast, complex and potentially unknowable. I have spent 40 years in medicinal chemistry, where curiously we never worried about forces....chemical processes were always defined by thermodynamic processes like bonding energies, favorable free energies etc. The basic periodic table is a basic problem in the stability/reactivity of aggregation of simple electrons, protons, ect, whose masses (weights)vary with the aggregational environment, yet the matter in these basic particles may not really change. Chemistry of course ia also a property of the internal concentrations/probabilities of matter, but does not require an external observer.

Hence the question, is it because in the basic physical model one assumes forces to be constant that mass, space and time become distorted...even though chemists appreciate that electrons attract protons...up to a specific distance...but never merge...ie can one not develop a basic model of the universe which centers around the "behavior of MATTER in SPACE and TIME" , which specifically addresses the question of order/disorder (of matter) a quality not basic to a force based physical theory, but central to the alchemist/chemist..afterall there is a lot of order in the universe. There are many questions ignored by physical science, yet observationally relevant to finding "truth" understanding of the universe.

I can expand further, as I am trying to do in my semiretirement, yet curiously, in my experience, this philosophical question confuses physical scientists who find truths, as defined within their models, but may miss artifacts, so to speak in a broader "understanding" type knowledge.?????
 
one more thing, in that it is difficult to argue with physical scientists, in that i am sure their mathematics is always correct, but i find the basic question of assumptions in the and around which the "model" was built to be of concern. Education in my experience, is related to mind control, in that one is "studying"/memorizing established models in the hopes that you will one day expand them...honor your predecessors and take up the priesthood so to speak...which forces one to look at or filter observationally your interests into specific extensions of dogma...
 
sorry to run on,
one other thing about alternative modeling..energy centered modeling...and chemical theory in general is that ideally everything should be associated with a thermodynamic parameter, which defines science from science fiction..its relative probability of stable existence...ie the mind can imagine many things but how can one compare a "entity" which might exist for a few picoseconds produced experimentally/artificially with something that may be stable over all (infinite) time..thermodynamics is something that does not naturally "pop" out of physical models, yet becomes a defining feature of energy based modelling.(over all space and time)
 
in energy based models, it is the associative properties of matter which define all points in space and time...chemical systems are always defined by the dynamics of association/disassociation..the non random interactions of matter

maybe modern education requires a fluency in juggling multiple models/paradigms and their limitations, against the inherent confusion of some internally felt truer truth...but a fundamental sense of how philosopphically to make semiselfconsistent models/paradigms..or how to select out the relevant observational basis set to use for construction
 
Last edited:
i also have a lifetime of memories, growing up on mazzola corn oil margarine, because (hydrogenated) unsaturated fats were so healthy, and saturated fats so bad..though i am sure corn oil producers profited vastly, curiously .that may have also been a problem with the basic model, so to speak...of course facts are facts, but philosophically models require premises and proper observational ""construction..to "build" facts..
in biological chemistry/medicinal chemistry..and the search for magic bullets, the art of model making becomes extremely complex and central( to funding), as despite the idea living systems are more complex that simple models...one can only look where the light shines...people love static structural models, like looking at dead butterfly s and imagining them flying, because like glass beads they are things one can show the "pagans"...looking like meaningful answers...reflecting light and electron beams..but of course they do not fly....maybe just need additional fudge factors somehow and all is well??? curiously in my experience life is dynamics, and crystals tend to be dead..
reproducible observational "facts" still are true, but how to fit into the bigger picture jigsaw puzzle of life (and disease)???????????? in some "curative" manner????
 
Last edited:
it is also curious in discussions, people love to argue "facts" but rarely the validity of underlying assumptions in their paradigm/model of thinking
 
You appear to be on a rhetoric mining excursion....

"Education in my experience, is related to mind control, in that one is"studying"/memorizing established models in the hopes that you will one day expand them...honor your predecessors and take up thepriesthood so to speak...which forces one to look at or filterobservationally your interests into specific extensions of dogma..."

This psycho-epistemic method is not a given. If a student has a individuated, responsible, first hand approach to knowledge the option of diverging from your predecessors is always present. These type of thinkers, however are usually concerned with giving credit where credit is due. Another thing entirely from the connotation your comment above is focused on.

You would benefit well from studying the Scientific Realism debate in the Philosophy of Science.
 
Thanks...will give this consideration....as i realize that i might have serious communication problems...:(
 
Last edited:
scientific realism...ho ho ho..i seem to have spent 40 years of my life studying...no living scientific realism from the perspective of synthetic/medicinal chemist/alchemist....philosophically...i am just looking for more "chemical science" realism.less "physical science" realism...but i guess i should just finish up my MS...as I sense I am somewhat "distal"/ discontent from/with the historical Church of Physical Science and its philosophy. it is curious in that as a young man, i went into science, because unlike most human adventures, i believed that it might lead to and was defined by "Truth"...though I do appreciate any all commentary, as i feel like a philosophical "singularity" of sorts, despite a lifetime of devouring scientific truths...on the path to" Knowing" kynowledge. I would still laugh at treatises of order out of chaos ..order/disorder that I have seen (which to me is the Heart of Chemistry/alchemy, but I may die laughing....ho ho ho...(I kind of want to apologize for my picture, as it was part of my honeymoon pictures...which I think was in Beijing, but it looked enigmatic)

ho ho of course i am humored by the popular physical model interpretations of quantum mechanics...and would only suggest that the fundamental problems of chemical theory are problems about stabilities (energies) of ordered matter in space and time vs relative energies of "random" matter in space and time...CHEMISTRY DOES NOT DEPEND ON (physical) FORCES...it is a science of relative energies....
 
Last edited:
Just tell us the epistemic method required to justify the concept "energy" as you are using it. Then the real ontological discussion can begin.
 
again thanks as i spent too may years in chemistry...where all we worried about was relative energies...anyway, i need to finish MS, as I want to"" re envision ...
i spent too many years studying static structures (butterfly collections) always wanting to understand dynamics...and thermodynamics...what drives things?
I do appreciate your comments, as I realize I have also spent a lot of years talking to myself..
CURIOUSLY CHEMISTRY IS DYNAMICS ORDER DISORDER OF MATTER ,, AND OF COURSE THERMODYNAMICS..ie non random associations / aggregations of matter in space and time;

sorry in that i am trying to formalieaze MS wise life type impressions..as I do not believe thaT forces are the defining UNIVERSE..

i LIKE to believe chemically speaking order disorder and the energy behind it is the defining feature of the universe
 
Last edited:
I do appreciate your responses, I I really did spend a lot of history, considering physicaltheory..and of course i have spent a lot of years talking to myself..but I was searching for truth..and it is somewhat of a religious question,even though I was raised Unitarian...WHY NOT TRUTH??
 
Just tell us the epistemic method required to justify the concept "energy" as you are using it. Then the real ontological discussion can begin.
...

Sorry , that it took me some time to reply...as I am still considering epistemic method and ontological discussions....As a chemist, I am fascinated by matterial order/disorder...the concepts of a chemical bond...chemical bonding energy arising from the non random interactions of two or more entities of matter in space and time...but this also requires better definition of randomness, against which order is defined, again of matter in space and time....ie the concept of how to represent the behavior of entities of matter in space and time, and how this behavior relates to concepts of "energy"...ie what is the matterial dependence of "energy"...in that as a chemist, i am really only interested in energy which is arising??? from the behavior of matter, again in space and time...as I believe that this will also qualify a system of thermodynamics...which may or may not relate to popular thermodynamics which we chemists love.

Perhaps the crazy part is that I do not see "forces" as being critical parameters in chemical problems...ie I see something like a proton being held together by internal chemical bonding CONSTANT energies, and of course some matterial dependence, again in space and time, as curiously the energy behind all matterial (chemical) order must not only have an internal bonding energy great enough to overcome the otherwisse random energy of the component matter, and a "molecularity" of complex formation related to the probability/concentrations of finding i ...monomers...in space and time....I would even go so far as to suggest that asociational/aggregational matterial point functions of space and time are the defining entities of dimensionality of both space and time
w
(OF COURSE, this requires "translation to more historical theory.. somethng like E=mC2 suggests an equivalence between energy and matter, which in my short lifetime as a chemist, like forces, would seem problematic?? BUT OF COURSE, mC2 curiously arises in the definition of absolutely random matter, suggestive of limit to the randomness of "matter"...but again with the idea that absolutely random matter cannot experimentally be detected...by definition.

anyway, curiously non random associations of matter seem to perturb adjacent random matter space, so again we have wave functions of space and time, which provides a mechanism for associated matter to interact w..ith other associations over space and time....Curiously I am trying to refine a simple two hugely coopertive association model , where the large exponential in component matterial entities, creates and all or non type association, quantatizes it, with two distincive different "frequencies" I am not sure quite what the applicability/limitations of this simple model will be...I do believe that we live in a matterially aggregative universe, and want to parameterize this aggregative model energetically. hopefully in some meaningful matter,

nor I am sure if this answered your question......as I realize this is at best a vague introduction to my quest, given that i seem to have to redefine entities and their relationships...trying to stay in the "same universe "...yet with slightly different perspectives....WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATTER AND ENERGY? and of course, as chemists we search for deeper understandings of ying yang of ordered/disordered matter in space and time...

Chemists see a slightly different world than physicists.
 
so many things in chemistry, like phase transitions, helical transitions etc involving order/disorder would seem to require a some energy based "nucleation"/propagation" type model...implying a high energy matterial arrangement of some sorts, followed by the formation of lower energy arrangements. This seems to be the basic mechanism by which chemical entities "communicate" in space and time over great distances...and life functions. Yet is is basically a question of order disorder of matter, in space and time, something somewhat foreign to historic physical sciences.which tries to approximate randomness via observer dependent kinetic energy, and invokes mythical crystal lattice forces...and ignores a huge body of matterial association aggregation data...except to fudge factor force and "filter" into defined computer mathematical models, perhaps missing more practical and thermodynamic implications..?????
it is curious, given the everincreasing level of bad craziness in the world??not to mention potential concerted and increasingly complex efforts of intentional disinformationalists, it is not always easy to get "perspective"..as life seems to give everyone their own distinctive "visions" based on their cumulative experiences, with perhaps less of a common basis set to draw communicatively upon. Even "Science" is now a collection of distinct specialties/technologies, where academicians work in sub groupthink"schools", and rarely understand what other GT schools publish or care to...as the Grander God of Knowledge has been monetized into distinctive "funding troughs" which thermodynamically drive evolution of thought, making primary education and its historical "bromides" less relevant to later and future "real life"..I apologize if I am running on, but oh well..onwards.???
Maybe it is inherently crazy to try to figure out the machinery/gearworks of living chemical systems..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top