There Can Be No Final Theory of Gravity | Summary and Q&A
Summary
This video discusses the concept of bayesianism and its application in the field of physics. It highlights the limitations of bayesian thinking and argues that it is not a foolproof method for guaranteeing the truth of scientific theories.
Questions & Answers
Q: What is the current theory on gravity?
The current theory on gravity is general relativity, which is the only theory currently on offer. Previously, there were two theories - Newtonian gravity and general relativity. However, a crucial experiment ruled out Newtonian gravity as an accurate explanation.
Q: What is a crucial experiment in science?
A crucial experiment refers to an experiment that, when the results go a certain way, rules out one theory while leaving the other theory unaffected. It is the final test that can determine the validity of competing scientific theories.
Q: Why do most physicists still adhere to bayesian thinking?
Most physicists still follow bayesian thinking because it is what is typically taught in universities and is considered an intellectually rigorous approach. Additionally, bayesianism is based on bayes theorem, a widely used statistical formula, which lends it a sense of legitimacy.
Q: Is bayesianism a guarantee of the truth or accuracy of a theory?
No, bayesianism is not a foolproof method for guaranteeing the truth of a theory. It is merely a statistical formula used for assessing probabilities. While it can provide confidence in a theory based on available evidence, it does not guarantee its ultimate truth.
Q: Can you provide an example of bayesian thinking in relation to Newton's theory of gravity?
Prior to 1919, experiments consistently supported Newton's theory of gravity. According to bayesian thinking, this would lead to increasing confidence in the theory. However, this raises the question of how the theory was confidently held even on the day before it was proven false.
Q: What is the alternative perspective to bayesianism?
An alternative perspective to bayesianism is what the speaker refers to as "peperion" or peperian thinking. This perspective suggests that theories, such as Newton's theory of gravity, may contain some truth but are not ultimately accurate representations of reality.
Q: Why is general relativity considered a better theory than Newton's theory of gravity?
General relativity is considered a better theory than Newton's because it corrects the errors present in Newton's theory. It provides a more accurate understanding of gravity, even though it is not the final theory and has its own limitations.
Q: Is there a possibility of a final theory of gravity?
No, there cannot be a final theory of gravity. The best we can hope for are better and better approximations to reality. As our understanding evolves, we may develop more refined theories, but the search for a final theory is likely to continue indefinitely.
Q: Why do humans tend to fall into bayesian thinking easily?
Humans tend to fall into bayesian thinking easily due to evolutionary factors. Evolutionarily, we are hardwired for bayesianism because our biological systems and ancestors relied on making predictions based on repeated events. While our neocortex allows us to form more complex explanations, defaulting to bayesianism is a natural tendency.
Q: Is bayesian thinking applicable beyond the biological level?
Bayesian thinking can be applicable beyond the purely biological level. It is a statistical approach that can be used to assess probabilities and make predictions. However, when it comes to complex scientific theories and understanding the unseen, bayesianism has its limitations and may not provide the complete picture.
Takeaways (in one paragraph)
The video challenges the idea that bayesian thinking is the ultimate method for guaranteeing the truth of scientific theories. It argues that while bayesianism has statistical validity and is widely taught and accepted, it is not an epistemological approach and does not ensure the accuracy of theories. The speaker presents the limitations of bayesian thinking by using the example of Newton's theory of gravity and advocates for an alternative perspective that acknowledges the existence of partial truths in scientific theories. Ultimately, the search for a final theory of gravity seems elusive, but the quest for better approximations to reality continues. The video highlights the evolutionary origins of bayesian thinking in humans and suggests that although defaulting to bayesianism is a natural tendency, it requires effort and deep thinking to move beyond it and explore alternative approaches to knowledge.
