A mind experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment , Gedanken-Experiments or Gedankenerfahrung ) considers several hypotheses, theories, or principles for the purpose of thinking about the consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may not be possible to do so, and even if it can be done, there is no need for any intention to do so.
The general goal of mind experimentation is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question:
-
- "The mind experiment is a device by which a person undertakes a deliberate and structured intellectual thought process to speculate, in the domain of a predetermined problem, of potential consequences (or predecessors) for a determined antecedent (or consequence)" (Yeates , 2004, p.Ã, 150).
Examples of mind experiments include the Schrödinger cat, describing quantum uncertainty through the manipulation of a perfectly closed environment and little radioactive material, and the demon Maxwell, who tries to demonstrate the ability of hypothetical limited beings to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Video Thought experiment
Ikhtisar
Ancient Greece ???????? , or the mind experiment, "is the most ancient pattern of mathematical proof", and existed before Euclidean mathematics, where the emphasis was on conceptual rather than on the experimental part of the experiment mind. Perhaps the key experiment in the history of modern science is Galileo's demonstration that falling objects must fall on the same level regardless of their mass. This is widely regarded as a straightforward physical demonstration, including climbing the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropping two heavy loads from him, when in fact, it is a logical demonstration, using a 'thought experiment' technique. The 'experiment' described by Galileo in Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche (1638) (literally, 'Discourse and Mathematical Demonstration') thus:
Salviati . If we then take two bodies at different speeds of nature, it is clear that in uniting the two, the faster ones will be partially retarded by the slower ones, and the slower ones will be a little hasty by the swifter. Do you disagree with me in this opinion?
Simplicio . You are undoubtedly true.
Salviati . But if this is true, and if a large rock moves with speed, say, eight while the smaller motion is at four, then when they are united, the system will move at a speed of less than eight; but the two stones when tied together make the stone bigger than the one previously moving at the speed of eight. Therefore, the heavier body moves at a lower speed than the lighter; an effect that goes against your assumption. So you see how, from your assumption that the heavier body moves faster than the lighter, I conclude that the heavier body moves more slowly.
Although the extract does not convey the elegance and power of 'demonstration' very well, it is clear that this is a 'thought' experiment, rather than a practical one. It is strange then, as Cohen says, that philosophers and scientists alike refuse to recognize Galileo in particular, or the general technique of mind experimentation for his important role in science and philosophy. (Exceptions prove the rule - the iconoclastic science philosopher Paul Feyerabend has also observed this methodological prejudice.)
By contrast, many philosophers who prefer to think 'Mind Trial' are merely the use of hypothetical scenarios to help understand how that happens.
Maps Thought experiment
Variety
Mental experiments have been used in many fields, including philosophy, law, physics, and mathematics. In philosophy, they have been used at least since classic antiquity, some pre-dating Socrates. By law, they are well known by Roman lawyers quoted in Digest. In physics and other sciences, important thought experiments date from the nineteenth century and especially the twentieth century, but examples can be found at least as early as Galileo.
The origin and use of the literal term
Johann Witt-Hansen determined that Hans Christian ÃÆ'ËÅ"rsted was the first to use the Latin-German mix of Gedankenexperiment (lit. mind experiments) around 1812. ÃÆ'ËÅ"rsted was also the first to use the whole German equivalent, Gedankenversuch , in 1820.
Later, Ernst Mach used the term "Gedankenexperiment in a different way, to show exclusively the imaginary behavior of the real experiments real physical experiment by his students. Physical and mental experiments can then be contrasted: Mach asks his students to give him an explanation whenever the results of their next physical experiment, different from their past experiments.
The English term thought experiment was created (as a calque) of Mach's Gedankenexperiment , and first appeared in English translation in 1897 one of Mach's papers. Prior to its emergence, the activity of asking hypothetical questions using subjunctive reasoning has existed for a very long time (for both scientists and philosophers). However, people have no way of categorizing or talking about it. This helps explain the vast and varied range of application of the term "mind experiments" after being introduced into English.
Usage
A well-structured, well-structured, experimental, hypothetical question that uses subjunctive reasoning (irrealis moods) - "What might happen (or, what might happen) if..." - has been used to ask questions in philosophy at at least since the days of ancient Greece, some of the pre-dating Socrates. In physics and other sciences, many thought experiments date from the nineteenth century and especially the twentieth century, but examples can be found at least as early as Galileo.
In the experiment of the mind we gain new information by reorganizing or reorganizing the already known empirical data in new ways and drawing new a priori conclusions from them or by looking at this data from a different and unusual perspective. In Galileo's mind experiments, for example, the rearrangement of empirical experiences consists of the initial idea of ​​incorporating bodies of different weights.
Mental experiments have been used in philosophy (especially ethics), physics, and other fields (such as cognitive psychology, history, political science, economics, social psychology, law, organizational studies, marketing, and epidemiology). In law, "hypothetical" synonyms are often used for such experiments.
Regardless of the intended purpose, all mind experiments show patterned ways of thinking that are designed to enable us to explain, predict, and control events in a better and more productive way.
Theoretical consequences
In terms of their theoretical consequences, mind experiments are generally:
- challenges (or even refutes) applicable theories, often involving a device known as reductio ad absurdum, (as in Galileo's original argument, evidence by contradiction),
- confirm the applicable theory,
- create a new theory, or
- simultaneously disprove the prevailing theory and build new theory through a shared exclusion process
Practical apps
The mind experiment can produce some very important and different views on a theory that was previously unknown or unacceptable. However, they may make the theories themselves irrelevant, and may be able to create new problems that are just as difficult, or perhaps more difficult to resolve.
In terms of their practical application, mind experiments are generally made to:
- challenges the prevailing status quo (which includes activities such as correcting misinformation (or misunderstanding), identifying deficiencies in the arguments presented, to retain (for long term) objectively determined facts, and refute specific statements that some certain things are allowed, prohibited, known, believed, probable, or necessary);
- foresees the possibility of outside (or interpolating within) the existing limit of facts;
- predict and foretell the (other) future unknown and unknown;
- describes the past;
- retrodiction, postdiction, and hindcasting from an unknown and unknown past (otherwise);
- facilitate decision making, choice and strategy selection;
- solve problems, and generate ideas;
- move the current problem (often unsolved) into another more helpful and more productive problem space (eg fixed functionality);
- attributes of causes, prevention, errors and liability for particular outcomes;
- assesses errors and redress in a social and legal context;
- ensuring a repetition of success in the past; or
- checks the extent to which previous events may have occurred differently.
- ensure (future) avoid past failures
In science
Scientists tend to use mind experiments as imaginary "proxy" experiments before real "physical" experiments (Ernst Mach always argues that this gedankenexperiment is "a necessary prerequisite for physical experimentation" ). In this case, the results of the "proxy" experiment will often be very clear so there is no need to do any physical experiments at all.
Scientists also use mind experiments when certain physical experiments are impossible (Carl Gustav Hempel labels such experiments " experimental-in-theoretical imagination "), such as Einstein's thought experiments to pursue light, leading to relativity special. This is a unique use of experimental scientific thought, as it has never been done, but it leads to a successful theory, as evidenced by other empirical means.
Relationship with real experiments
Relationships with real experiments can be very complicated, as can be seen again from the example back to Albert Einstein. In 1935, with two co-workers, he published a paper on a newly created subject called the later EPR effect (EPR paradox). In this paper, starting from certain philosophical assumptions, on the basis of rigorous analysis of a particular model, is complex, but in the meantime, it comes to the conclusion that quantum mechanics should be described as "incomplete" . Niels Bohr confirmed the rejection of Einstein's analysis immediately, and his views apply. After several decades, it was stated that a viable experiment could prove the error of the EPR paper. This experiment tested Bell's inequality published in 1964 in a purely theoretical paper. The initial assumptions of the above mentioned EPR philosophy are considered to be falsified by empirical facts (eg by Alain Aspect's real optical experiments).
Thus the thought-experiments belong to theoretical disciplines, usually to theoretical physics, but often to theoretical philosophy. In any case, it must be distinguished from real experiments, which naturally belong to experimental disciplines and have "final decisions about true or not true ", at least in physics.
Causal reasoning
The first characteristic pattern to think of an experimental view is their orientation in time. They are:
- antequantual speculation : experiments that speculate on what might happen before a certain event is specified, or
- postfactual speculation : experiments that speculate on what might happen after (or as a result) a specified event is specified.
The second characteristic pattern is their movement in time in relation to the "current point of view" of the experimental individual; namely, in the case of:
- Their interim direction : are they oriented past or future-oriented?
- Temporary feelings them:
- (a) In the case of a past-oriented mind experiment, have they examined the temporary "movement" consequences of the present into the past, or from the past to the present? or,
- (b) in the case of future-oriented mind experiments, do they examine the temporary "movement" consequences of the present into the future, or from the future to the present?
Seven types
In general, there are seven types of mind experiments in which one reason from cause to effect, or effect on cause:
Prefactual
Prefactual (pre-fact) experimental thinking - the term prefactual was created by Lawrence J. Sanna in 1998 - speculating about the possible future outcome, given current, and asking "What which will be the result if the E event occurs? "
Counterfactual
The counterfactual model (contrary to established facts) - the counterfactual term was coined by Nelson Goodman in 1947, extending Roderick Chisholm's (1946) idea of ​​"conditional facts" - speculating about possible outcomes from different past; and asked, "What might happen if A happened instead of B?" (for example, "If Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz have worked with each other, what does math look like today?").
The study of counterfactual speculation increasingly involves the interests of scholars in areas such as philosophy, psychology, cognitive psychology, history, political science, economics, social psychology, law, organizational theory, marketing, and epidemiology.
Semifaktual
Semifactual thought experiment semifactual term created by Nelson Goodman in 1947 - speculates about the extent to which things may remain the same, though there are different pasts. ; and ask a question Even though X happens instead of E, is Y still going to happen? (e.g. If the goalkeeper has moved to the left, rather than right, can he have tapped the ball that is speeding like that?).
Semipaktual speculation is an important part of clinical medicine.
Prediction
Prediction activities try to project the present state into the future. According to David Sarewitz and Roger Pielke (1999, p123), scientific prediction takes two forms:
- (1) "Explanation of the invariant principle - and therefore predictive - the principle of nature"; and
- (2) "[Using] a suite of observational data and sophisticated numerical models in an attempt to predict the behavior or evolution of complex phenomena".
Although they perform different social and scientific functions, the only distinction between activities that are qualitatively identical predicting, estimation, and nowcasting is the distance from speculating the future from now occupied by the user. While the nowcasting activity, defined as "a detailed description of the current weather along with estimates obtained by extrapolating up to 2 hours ahead", basically relates to describing the current state, it is a common practice to extend the term "to include close-up forecasting of up to 12 hour ahead "(Browning, 1982, p.ix).
Retrodiction
Retrodoic activity (or postdiction ) involves moving backwards in time, step by step, in many necessary stages, from the present to the past speculating to establish the main cause of certain events (eg, reverse engineering and forensics).
Given that retrodiction is a process in which "observations, events and past data are used as evidence to conclude the process (es) they produce" and that the diagnosis "involves [s] goes from the effects of visible signs, signs and the like to their former cause ", the essential balance between prediction and retrodiction can be characterized as:
-
- retrodiction: diagnosis: :: prediction: prognosis
regardless of whether the prognosis is the course of the disease in the absence of treatment, or the application of specific treatment regimens for certain disorders in certain patients.
Backcasting
Backcasting - the term backcasting created by John Robinson in 1982 - involves the preparation of a definite and very specific description of the future situation. Then it involves the imaginary moving backwards in time, step by step, in the many stages it deems necessary, from the future to the present to reveal the mechanism by which a specially determined future can be achieved from the present.
Backcasting is not related to predicting the future:
-
- The main characteristic that distinguishes from backcasting analysis is attention, not with the possibility of future energy, but with how the desired future can be achieved. Thus it is explicitly normative, involving 'work backwards' from a certain end point of the future to the present to determine what policy steps are needed to achieve that future.
According to Jansen (1994, p.Ã, 503:
-
- Within the framework of technological development, "forecasting" involves extrapolating future developments and exploring achievements that can be realized through technology over the long term. Instead, the reason behind "backcasting" is: on the basis of an interconnected picture of technological demands to meet in the future - the "sustainability criteria" - to direct and determine the process to be taken and perhaps the speed at which this development process should take effect.
- Backcasting is both an important aid in determining the direction of technological development should take and in determining the targets to be set for this purpose. Thus, backcasting is an ideal search for determining the nature and scope of technological challenges posed by sustainable development, and thus can serve to direct the search process toward sustainable new technologies.
In philosophy
In philosophy, mind experiments usually present imaginary scenarios with the aim of generating an intuitive or grounded response to the way things are in mind experiments. (Philosophers may also complement their mind experiments with theoretical reasoning designed to support the desired intuitive response.) Scenarios will usually be designed to target certain philosophical ideas, such as morality, or the nature of the mind or linguistic reference. The response to the imagined scenario should tell us about the nature of the idea in any scenario, real or imaginative.
For example, mind experiments may present situations in which an agent deliberately kills an innocent person for the benefit of another. Here, the relevant question is not whether the action is moral or not, but more broadly whether the true moral theory that says morality is determined solely by the consequences of action (See Consequentialism). John Searle pictured a man in a locked room receiving a written sentence in Chinese, and returned a written sentence in Chinese, according to a sophisticated manual. Here, the relevant question is not whether the man understands Mandarin, but more broadly, whether the functionalist mind theory is true.
It is generally expected that there is a universal agreement on intuition exploited by thought experiments. (Therefore, in assessing the experiments of their own minds, the philosophers may appeal to "what to say," or some such location.) Successful mind experiments will be one where the intuition of it is widely shared. But often, philosophers differ in their intuition about the scenario.
Another philosophical usage of a scenario imaginable is practically a thought experiment as well. In one scenario usage, philosophers may imagine people in certain situations (maybe ourselves), and ask what they will do.
For example, in the veil of ignorance, John Rawls asks us to imagine a group of people in a situation where they know nothing about themselves, and are accused of designing a social or political organization. The use of the state of nature to imagine the origins of government, such as by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, may also be thought of as a thought experiment. SÃÆ'¸ren Kierkegaard explores the possible ethical and religious implications of Abraham's bondage to Isaac in Fear and Tremble Similarly, Friedrich Nietzsche, in the Moral Genealogy, speculates on the historical development of Jewish morality -Christians, with the intention of questioning its legitimacy.
An early thought experiment written was the allegory of Plato's cave. Another historical thought experiment was Avicenna's 11th-century "Aviation Man" experiment. He asks his readers to imagine themselves hanging in the air isolated from all the sensations to show self-awareness and human self-awareness, and the insistence of the soul.
Possible
The scenarios presented in mind experiments should be possible in a sense. In many thought experiments, the scenario may be nomological, or perhaps in accordance with the laws of nature. The Chinese space of John Searle is nomologically possible.
Some thought experiments present scenarios that are not possible nomologically. In his Twin Earth thinking experiment, Hilary Putnam asks us to imagine a scenario in which there are substances with all observable water properties (eg, taste, color, boiling point), but chemically different from water. It has been argued that this thought experiment is not possible nomologically, although it may be in some other sense, like a metaphysical possibility. It is debatable whether the nomological impossibility of mind experimentation makes intuition about it disputed.
In some cases, hypothetical scenarios may be considered metaphysically impossible, or impossible at all. David Chalmers says that we can imagine that there are zombies, or people who are physically identical to us in all things but who have no consciousness. This should show that physics is wrong. However, some argue that zombies are inconceivable: we can not imagine zombies more than we can imagine that 1 1 = 3. Others claim that the possibility of a scenario has no possibility.
Experiments of interactive thinking in a digital environment
The philosophical work of Stefano Gualeni focuses on the use of cyberspace to realize thought experiments and to negotiate philosophical ideals altogether. His argument was originally presented in his 2015 Virtual Worlds as Philosophical Tools .
Gualeni's argument is that the history of philosophy, until recently, is only the history of written thought, and digital media can complement and enrich the limited linguistic approach and almost exclusively to philosophical thought. He considers the virtual world philosophically viable and profitable in contexts such as thought experiments, when certain recipients of ideas or philosophical perspectives are expected to test and evaluate objectively objective actions, or in cases where they are confronted with interrogations. concerning non-actual or non-human phenomenology.
Among the most visible mind experiments designed by Stefano Gualeni:
- Something Something Soup (2017)
- Crime Required (2013)
Another example of a fun and interactive thought experiment:
- Evolution Trus t (Niki Case, 2017)
- We Become What We Entertain (Niki Case, 2016)
- To Build a Better Mouse Trap (La Molleindustria, 2014)
- Parable of Polygons (Vi Hart & Niki Case, 2014)
Example
Physics
Philosophy
Math
Biology
- The Levinthal Paradox
- Rotate movers in the system of life
Computer science
Economy
- Damage to broken windows (unauthorized consequence law, opportunity cost)
- Laffer Curve
- Austrian School
See also
References
Further reading
Bibliography
External links
- The thought experiment at PhilPapers
- Experimental ideas in the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
- Philosophy Bites podcast: Nigel Warburton interview Julian Baggini on Trial Mind
- Stevinus, Galileo, and a Short Essay Thought Experiment by S. Abbas Raza of 3 Daily Quarks
- The mind experiment builder, an entertaining visual aid to run your own mind experiment
- Articles on Experimental Mind in PhilSci Archive , an electronic archive for precision in the philosophy of science.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments