2

So do not have a philosophy degree however I am trained for physics. I am quite interested in the stands philosophy takes given the degree of freedom in physics.

However, I feel in this case whatever both sides are saying it is getting lost in translation.

Is there a system where it is impossible to tell the fundamental type of probability?

I am trying to ask something using well defined notions. However, part of my vocabulary is banned. For example,

  1. I also want to use the word symmetry breaking to make a point (so that way I can talk about non-unitary evolution without mention of the measurement)
  2. I want to use the concept "taking Planck's constant to 0" (which is more than substituting Planck's constant with 0)

My question is what can I do to make sense to a philosopher? Just for reference in my eyes the above question is just as philosophical as the below one:

Removal of the distinction between the "initial condition" and the "laws of physics"?

1

It seems like you received answers or links to references in the comments in both cited questions. It looks like you were able to communicate well enough to get those responses even if they were not what you were looking for.

Here are some suggestions as an answer this question: My question is what can I do to make sense to a philosopher?

  1. Keep trying. If nothing else, formulating a question (or answer) should help you better understand what you are trying to say.

  2. Don't assume that the people currently viewing the question know much about the subject matter. Others coming along later may understand it better.

  3. Make the question as simple as possible with links to sources providing more information (as you have done).

  4. Even people more familiar with philosophy find it difficult communicating. What should they do? Keep trying.

1

If you'd look at (*good) philosophical works, you'll see that something that distinguish them from other academic works, especially in the accurate science fields, is the use of rich vocabulary.

One of the defining aspects of a good philosopher is their explanatory ability. What you seem to be lacking in "translation" from accurate science to humanities (and more particularly philosophy) is exactly the idea that you need to keep using those "well-defined notions". Obviously, a philosopher attempts to define their terms as best as they could, but they'll use rich vocabulary in order to define them.

As you currently do not have any established term for the notions you're trying to make, you should try to explain it yourself as best as you could, don't save words, elaborate as much as you can in order to avoid any mistakes in interpretation. After you've explained your notions, you may refer them as a defined "terms".

By the way, you should know that philosophers do use vocabularies from other disciplines, so don't consider your physics vocabulary as "banned"; however if you feel like whomever you're talking to do not understand your vocabulary, simply try to explain it in simpler terms, which can still be physical if you must.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .