Had a big debate about this recently so out of interest, would like to see what people think is the fundamental science....and discuss.

When I was younger I thought physics was the fundamental science and everything was a branch of it. I now think maths, every science is a branch of maths, but people disagree with this.

I've kept the options simple, but feel free to use other and state what it is in a reply.

Im a Physicist so im a bit biased but I think that Physics is the fundamental science as it goes hand in hand with maths and both were realised by the very same person.. (Newton, in the modern sence of both physics and maths)

What do you mean by fundamentat foxxx ?

Originally posted by Jamie
What do you mean by fundamentat foxxx ?

Well basically, the ruling science. ie. it governs everything! Everything else is governed by it's rules and are just branchs of the main science.
Hope that makes sense!

It can only be maths, as every other science makes its measurements mathematically. It is at the heart of building a rational, no-biased, repeatable argument, as it is the universal language.

My gut reaction is to say philosophy.

When I've thought about it a bit more I may come back and argue why.

Nomme

Originally posted by RPG
Im a Physicist so im a bit biased but I think that Physics is the fundamental science as it goes hand in hand with maths and both were realised by the very same person.. (Newton, in the modern sence of both physics and maths)

Physics was my fav subject and I always thought of it as the main science, biology and chemistry being branchs of physics.
However I think that everything can go back to mathematics.
Take all the laws of physics, these are all governed by maths. If you go right down to the smallest scale in anything in this world, including all the cells in our bodies, the chemical reactions between the synapses in our brains, sound (music), energy, the PC I'm typing on, etc etc, it is all governed by mathematical equations and alogorithms, 1s and 0s.

Originally posted by nomme
My gut reaction is to say philosophy.

When I've thought about it a bit more I may come back and argue why.

Nomme

I'd be interested to hear your reasoning....:)

Originally posted by Foxxx
it is all governed by mathematical equations and alogorithms, 1s and 0s.

The former were "invented" by Newton though... as a result of "inventing" physics in its modern sense.

The latter (1s and 0s) were invented by a young woman in a field :lol:

I would be more inclined to go with something like Philosophy too ...

Originally posted by Foxxx
I'd be interested to hear your reasoning....:)

OK . Let's start with a dictionary definition (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=philosophy):


\Phi*los"o*phy\, n.; pl. Philosophies. [OE. philosophie, F. philosophie, L. philosophia, from Gr. ?. See Philosopher.] 1. Literally, the love of, including the search after, wisdom; in actual usage, the knowledge of phenomena as explained by, and resolved into, causes and reasons, powers and laws.

Note: When applied to any particular department of knowledge, philosophy denotes the general laws or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject are comprehended. Thus philosophy, when applied to God and the divine government, is called theology; when applied to material objects, it is called physics; when it treats of man, it is called anthropology and psychology, with which are connected logic and ethics; when it treats of the necessary conceptions and relations by which philosophy is possible, it is called metaphysics.

Note: ``Philosophy has been defined: tionscience of things divine and human, and the causes in which they are contained; -- the science of effects by their causes; -- the science of sufficient reasons; -- the science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible; -- the science of things evidently deduced from first principles; -- the science of truths sensible and abstract; -- the application of reason to its legitimate objects; -- the science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason; -- the science of the original form of the ego, or mental self; -- the science of science; -- the science of the absolute; -- the scienceof the absolute indifference of the ideal and real.'' --Sir W. Hamilton.


The bold bit is my emphasis. and pretty much sums up my argument. Regardless of the subject area philosophy is FUNDAMENTAL.

A weak argument is to consider higher education - regardless of the subject area you can always get a PhD.
You become not a doctor in maths or physics or biology but a Doctor of Philosophy.

I see what you are saying about maths.
I wouldn't say that maths was the fundamental science though. I'd be more inclined to say maths was the language of science.

Nomme

science - the application of scientific method.

science does not govern anything.

science tries to model the universe by coding it into signs

the root science, that governs all the others is epistemology.

And that isn't a science so much as a rolling philosophical debate about what actually consitutes knowledge, truth, falsehood, and other fundamental concepts which we use so readily yet understand so poorly.

Epistemology is a hot philosphical issue, the very foundations of knowledge depend on it.

Maths is just a language like nomme just said, we use it in physics to describe the observable laws of the universe. Chemistry and Biology fit within the laws thus described.
Philosophy isn't a science - it's the search for knowledge.

Actually Phen is right, science doesn't make the laws, it just tries to find them and describe them. But within that physics is at the top of the tree.

I believe that "knowing" is simply activity of the human mind ... therefore all "knowing" is subjective and inconclusive.

The activity of "knowing" is like scribbling on a blank white sheet of paper with different coloured wax crayons ... and the result "knowlege" ... is nothing more than pretty pictures.

All science (seems to me) is based on this mental activity and 'movement' of the human mind ... but what happens if the mind is kept still !?

if your mind is still, your either a zen master, or dead.

Originally posted by Jamie
All science (seems to me) is based on this mental activity and 'movement' of the human mind ... but what happens if the mind is kept still !?

Will someone silence that chattering monkey?

;)

Nomme

Originally posted by Cyclone
if your mind is still, your either a zen master, or dead.

... or simply a person with a still mind ... i doubt such a person would care much for gimmicky labels like 'zen master' ...

alas ... my own mind is not still ... it flitters around quite merrily from one thing to the next ... although i do try to calm it down and control myself ... it does from time to time get the better of me and forces me post on here (sorry nomme).

seriously though ... i do believe that the way to percieve the true nature of the universe / your own reality ... is through stillness and being empty.

still !!! ... you're more than welcome to disagree with me.

only the surface of a still lake gives a true reflection of the sky ...

My fiancee the scientist says none of them.. because they are all inter-linked, and you cant have one of them without the others!

Biology could not exist without chemistry. Chemistry couldn't exist without physics. Therefore I'd say physics.

Mathematics isn't really a science. It's merely a model which can be used to measure and predict the outcome of experimentations.

But come to think of it, none of the above would exist if it wasn't for philosophy, although philosophy isn't really a science either.

Originally posted by Jamie
alas ... my own mind is not still ... it flitters around quite merrily from one thing to the next ... although i do try to calm it down and control myself ... it does from time to time get the better of me and forces me post on here (sorry nomme).

It was a joke Jamie.
OK, it was Zen Buddist joke that I thought you (of all people) would get. Note also your avatar!

http://members.aol.com/MorrisFF/Meditation.html

Jokes are crap when you have to explain them aren't they.

Nomme

Ooooops !!

I plain didn't get the joke nomme (until you pointed it out for me) ... jokes are easily missed on here me thinks.

I best get back to work ....

Originally posted by Jamie
... or simply a person with a still mind ... i doubt such a person would care much for gimmicky labels like 'zen master' ...

alas ... my own mind is not still ... it flitters around quite merrily from one thing to the next ... although i do try to calm it down and control myself ... it does from time to time get the better of me and forces me post on here (sorry nomme).

seriously though ... i do believe that the way to percieve the true nature of the universe / your own reality ... is through stillness and being empty.

still !!! ... you're more than welcome to disagree with me.

only the surface of a still lake gives a true reflection of the sky ...

they may not care for the label, but who asked them, they should be sat quietly in a corner contemplating nothing and knowing nothing.
A still mind is an exercise in self, not a way to understanding anything.

Physics is not dependant on biology or chemistry.

they may not care for the label,

I suspect your right there.

but who asked them,

Not me, did you !? ... how is it relevant !?

they should be sat quietly in a corner contemplating nothing and knowing nothing.

Why should they be doing or not doing anything !?

A still mind is an exercise in self, not a way to understanding anything.

IMHO ... a still mind to be simply the absense of exercise / activity ... so I disagree with you on that point.

I agree with you that stillness is not a way to 'understanding' ... thank goodness !!!

Physics is not dependant on biology or chemistry.

No comment !!

Physics is fantastic, it crops up in everything. e.g. when doing biology and chemistry related disciplines, you find a lhell of alot of physics e.g. how cells move, depolarisation of membranes, potential differences, the list goes on and on.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Physics is fantastic, it crops up in everything. e.g. when doing biology and chemistry related disciplines, you find a lhell of alot of physics e.g. how cells move, depolarisation of membranes, potential differences, the list goes on and on.

Don't you think that the divisions between different sciences are entirely synthetic and that the sum of human knowledge does not fall neatly into categories such as the ones you have mentioned?

Science doesn't govern anything - it is merely humanity's current best guess at modelling the universe in their heads.

Otherwise the world would still be flat and the sun would go round the earth.

I'm not denying its pragmatic uses, such as telling the time and cooking food, but science is, at all times, a best guess hyptothesis.

Who was taught about the 'radio ether' at school?

Ultimately science resembles Jamie's cryptic Taoist responses - allegory and analogy to try and describe something that is itself more than the symbols we use to represent it.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Physics is fantastic, it crops up in everything.

I loved Physics at school and I got an o'level 'B' pass in Physics (OK not that brilliant I know).

I can remember getting excited about going to the class when I was 14 / 15.

I did not like Chemisty though ... apart from burning that shiney magnesium paper stuff and doing stuff with acid (not that kind!).

Originally posted by Jamie
I suspect your right there.



Not me, did you !? ... how is it relevant !?



Why should they be doing or not doing anything !?



IMHO ... a still mind to be simply the absense of exercise / activity ... so I disagree with you on that point.

I agree with you that stillness is not a way to 'understanding' ... thank goodness !!!



No comment !!

My last post was supposed to be a bit tongue in cheek.

But you said they wouldn't care for the label, I was saying "so what".
To have a still mind they presumably won't be off playing a bit of footie, hence sat still doing nothing.
Do you believe that achieving a still mind requires no effort? By an exercise in self, I meant that it was an internal thing, strength of mind and discipline to empty it of thought. As opposed to observing the world and trying to understand the rules which govern it.

You cannot possibly try to argue that physics is dependant on chemistry or biology. All of chemistry is ultimately a higher level model of certain physical processes. The higher level makes it easier to understand and predict. The whole electron sharing, covalent bonding, hydrogen bonding, etc, etc... that makes up chemistry can all be put down to physics, it's the electromagnetic forces that make chemistry happen.
Biology is if you like a subset of chemistry, a higher level way of looking at a whole bunch of chemical reactions working in a systematic way. Without chemistry the behaviour of a cell could not be explained, it would be a black box.

I acknolodge what Phen is driving at. The universe is as it is, whether we observe something, stick a label on it and say that we understand it or not, it still will be that way.
Science is a model we develop to help us to understand and predict the universe, however it's the best model we have, so i'm sticking with it.

Maths is the Queen of Science. How do I know this?

Because my school teacher told me, 19 years ago

To have a still mind they presumably won't be off playing a bit of footie, hence sat still doing nothing.

They may well be off playing football ...

I suppose it comes down to what is meant by 'still mind'. Perhaps 'relaxed mind' is a better wording. Keeping a still or relaxed mind during regular daily physical activity would just be more of a challenge I guess ...

Do you believe that achieving a still mind requires no effort?

YES ... and NO.

To really get anywhere requires a lot of discipline and training ... and there are various traditions that will pass this on from master to student. I believe having a still mind is being without effort and strain. However ... getting to this state in the first place will not happen by magic ...

By an exercise in self, I meant that it was an internal thing, strength of mind and discipline to empty it of thought. As opposed to observing the world and trying to understand the rules which govern it.

Observing the world and trying to understand it ... seems to presupose that we are seperate to the world.

So I ask myself ...

1) Where is the dividing line between the world and my perception of the world ?

2) How can I seperate those two ?

3) How do I know that a thing exists seperate to my perception of it ?

I would suggest that this appearance of seperation is an activity of the human mind (at some deep level) ... and that 'in here' and 'out there' are one in the same.

I could be wrong however ... it is something I am trying still to figure out.