<story><title>Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?</title><url>http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/06/28/483805061/has-physics-gotten-something-really-important-really-wrong</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>xyzzyz</author><text>Maybe, but sadly philosophy doesn&amp;#x27;t have a good track record when it comes to actually solving problems.</text></item><item><author>dmfdmf</author><text>&amp;gt; Physics has been stuck on this problem for almost a century now. Philosophy won&amp;#x27;t help.&lt;p&gt;It sure seems to be an epistemology problem which puts it squarely in the realm of philosophy, not physics.</text></item><item><author>Animats</author><text>This is Smolin, making his usual, and valid, criticisms of modern physics. Smolin&amp;#x27;s basic complaint is that there is no experimental evidence for string theory.  The math is pretty, and a whole generation of physicists have worked on it, but nothing is experimentally testable. Everything is too small or at too high an energy level.  A practical implication is that it doesn&amp;#x27;t lead to any technology.&lt;p&gt;Smolin also doesn&amp;#x27;t like many-worlds, because it talks about unreachable regions. This he considers too speculative.  There&amp;#x27;s a basic problem in quantum mechanics, which leads to Schroedinger&amp;#x27;s Cat, the Copenhagen Interpretation, and, in the end, many-worlds.[1]&lt;p&gt;Physics has been stuck on this problem for almost a century now.  Philosophy won&amp;#x27;t help.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Copenhagen_interpretation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Copenhagen_interpretation&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>beefield</author><text>It may be that my memory does not serve me well, but I think I got an impression from the history of the philosophy that once there is a field of philosophy that actually starts solving problems, it very fast changes its name to something else than philosophy. For example[1], Newton&amp;#x27;s 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy later became classified as a book of physics.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Philosophy&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Philosophy&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Has Physics Gotten Something Really Important Really Wrong?</title><url>http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/06/28/483805061/has-physics-gotten-something-really-important-really-wrong</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>xyzzyz</author><text>Maybe, but sadly philosophy doesn&amp;#x27;t have a good track record when it comes to actually solving problems.</text></item><item><author>dmfdmf</author><text>&amp;gt; Physics has been stuck on this problem for almost a century now. Philosophy won&amp;#x27;t help.&lt;p&gt;It sure seems to be an epistemology problem which puts it squarely in the realm of philosophy, not physics.</text></item><item><author>Animats</author><text>This is Smolin, making his usual, and valid, criticisms of modern physics. Smolin&amp;#x27;s basic complaint is that there is no experimental evidence for string theory.  The math is pretty, and a whole generation of physicists have worked on it, but nothing is experimentally testable. Everything is too small or at too high an energy level.  A practical implication is that it doesn&amp;#x27;t lead to any technology.&lt;p&gt;Smolin also doesn&amp;#x27;t like many-worlds, because it talks about unreachable regions. This he considers too speculative.  There&amp;#x27;s a basic problem in quantum mechanics, which leads to Schroedinger&amp;#x27;s Cat, the Copenhagen Interpretation, and, in the end, many-worlds.[1]&lt;p&gt;Physics has been stuck on this problem for almost a century now.  Philosophy won&amp;#x27;t help.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Copenhagen_interpretation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Copenhagen_interpretation&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dmfdmf</author><text>This reminds me of the old adage about the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp post because &amp;quot;that&amp;#x27;s where the light is&amp;quot;. If the solution in physics requires a revolution in philosophy then that is where we must look.</text></comment>