[HN Gopher] The Epistemology of Microphysics
___________________________________________________________________
The Epistemology of Microphysics
Author : danielam
Score : 36 points
Date : 2026-03-25 13:46 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.edwardfeser.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.edwardfeser.com)
| a3w wrote:
| > Microphysics is the branch of physics that studies molecules,
| atoms, and elementary particles.
|
| So not quite chemistry, but particle physics?
| pdonis wrote:
| I don't think it's that narrow. The article mentions the
| kinetic theory of gases, which explains the observed properties
| of gases in terms of statistics of the motions of the atoms or
| molecules that make up the gas. Chemistry also explains
| observed properties of chemical elements and compounds based on
| the properties of atoms and molecules. I think those are
| included in "microphysics" as the article is using the term.
|
| The article does focus on particle physics, I think because
| that's the most fundamental level of physics we have--
| everything else is built on it.
| markhahn wrote:
| I still don't know why the author brought religion/faith/god into
| the discussion; he seems like a religionist trying to come to
| grips with the dominance of our world by science and the
| scientific epistemology.
| mysterymath wrote:
| Beeeecause this was a lecture delivered at a Catholic
| philosophy/theology conference?
| pdonis wrote:
| _> he seems like a religionist trying to come to grips with the
| dominance of our world by science and the scientific
| epistemology._
|
| That's because he is. Take a look at the articles listed on his
| website.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > scientific epistemology
|
| Science can't tell us so far what really exists. It can only
| predict experiments. To put it in more common terms, "is the
| wave function real or not?", or "do quantum fields really
| exist, or are just elegant mathematical abstractions for
| explaining experiments?"
|
| Or as others say "shut up and calculate".
| pdonis wrote:
| _> It can only predict experiments._
|
| Your "only" here makes it seem like predicting experiments is
| a narrow thing. It's not. All of the modern technologies we
| have--including the computers we're all using to post here--
| are based on science "predicting experiments"--but the
| "experiments" are things like building computers, or the
| Internet, or the GPS system. The fact that all those things
| work exactly as our science predicts makes it very hard to
| view that science as "only predicting experiments". It's
| telling us how to use real things to build real technologies
| that have real impacts on people's lives.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| Not only that - one could argue that all observed phenomena
| are _experiments_ , and the way we behave in the world is
| based on _predicting_ them.
|
| A religious person - if not honest enough to simply say
| "existence of God is an axiom and cannot be derived from
| reason alone" - uses the very _predictions of experiments_
| to reason God into existence: everything that exists has a
| cause; universe exists; therefore universe has a cause.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Epistemically speaking, the existence of God is _not_
| axiomatic. Your second claims is more accurate, though
| not entirely. Knowledge of God 's existence is derived
| from observed features of reality. However, these
| features are very general and not scientific per se;
| rather, they are presupposed by empirical science.
| Examples include the reality of change, causality
| (especially _per se_ vs. what science is generally
| concerned with, _per accidens_ ), or the existence of
| things. The denial of these general features would
| undermine not just the possibility of science, but the
| very intelligibility of the world. You would hang
| yourself by your own skepticism.
|
| These are also not axiomatically accepted features either
| (except perhaps in the sense that they are in relation to
| the empirical sciences, as science presupposes their
| existence).
| bheadmaster wrote:
| > Knowledge of God's existence is derived from observed
| features of reality.
|
| If it were so, God's existence would be just another
| scientific fact.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Did you read my entire post? I already explained to you
| why this isn't the case. We known that, for example,
| change is real through general observation, but it is not
| something belonging to any empirical science per se.
| Rather, it is presupposed by each of those sciences.
|
| Of course, the classical definition of "science" is more
| expansive, including what would be the most general
| science - metaphysics - so in that sense, _yes_ , you can
| say the existence of God is a "scientific fact". (God
| here is self-subsisting being, not some ridiculous "sky
| fairy" straw man of New Atheist imagination.)
| bheadmaster wrote:
| Yes I did, but the rest of the comment hangs on the
| initial claim I replied to.
|
| If you redefine God to mean "fundamental assumptions of
| the universe", its existence becomes tautological. But
| that is not what most people mean (including the author
| of the article we're commenting on) when they say "God".
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| That's a straightforwardly circular argument - creating
| your own definition, then using it as a proof.
|
| Change is not presupposed by science. Various
| experiences/models of change are _described_ by science,
| which is not the same thing at all.
|
| There are block universe interpretations of cosmology
| which do not require change.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Examples include the reality of change, causality
| (especially per se vs. what science is generally
| concerned with, per accidens), or the existence of
| things._
|
| How do any of these things allow you to derive knowledge
| of God's existence?
| dist-epoch wrote:
| > It's telling us how to use real things to build real
| technologies that have real impacts on people's lives.
|
| That's the popular definition of the word "real".
|
| But this article is about the philosophical meaning of the
| word "real". And from that viewpoint science hasn't
| delivered yet, science doesn't know yet what "really exists
| out there", it can only predict how that thing behaves in
| experiments.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> this article is about the philosophical meaning of the
| word "real"._
|
| If the philosophical meaning of "real" admits that
| computers, the Internet, and the GPS system are real,
| then I don't see what grounds it has for rejecting that
| things like transistors and electrons and other such
| underlying things are real as well, since transistors and
| electrons and other such underlying things are what we
| build computers, the Internet, and the GPS system out of.
|
| If the philosophical meaning of "real" casts doubt on
| whether computers, the Internet, and the GPS system are
| "real", then why should we care about it?
|
| _> from that viewpoint science hasn 't delivered yet_
|
| If science hasn't, then neither has anything else.
| huertouisj wrote:
| you are confused.
|
| the question is about what does fundamentally exist, not
| what you perceive through eyes or experiments.
|
| do particles exist or not? is it all just in your
| imagination because you are a "brain in a vat?" what
| about the everettian multi-verse, is that real or not?
|
| by saying these SCIENTIFIC questions are trivial to
| answer because you can hold a GPS receiver in your hand
| is to completly misunderstand what is being discussed
| here
|
| nobody said something else deliverd on this question. but
| neither did science. it's the consensus in physics right
| now that it can't say what "really exists", this is not a
| fringe position
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It does neither. The philosophical meaning of "real" is
| exactly the process of exploring the various possible
| definitions.
|
| And it leads to the observation that our experience of
| reality is not objective, not absolute, and is likely
| very species-specific.
|
| A cat can sit on a laptop without understanding the
| laptop or the Internet. All it experiences is a warm
| object
|
| Is it rational or realistic to assume we don't have
| analogous perceptual and conceptual limitations which -
| of course - we're not aware of?
| mejari wrote:
| >Science can't tell us so far what really exists.
|
| Only inasmuch as _nothing_ can tell us what "really" exists.
| By any practical definitions of any of the words in that
| sentence science is the best way of determining what exists.
| IAmBroom wrote:
| ... which is still far more than religion can provably do.
| verisimi wrote:
| I think the reason is because he was trying illustrate that you
| can say an awful lot (in analogical language) about things that
| are not empirically observable.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-29 23:00 UTC)