The Invisible Philosophy: How Unexamined Axioms in Physics Create a Barrier to Progress

J. Rogers, SE Ohio

Abstract

Modern physics operates under the illusion that it is free from philosophy. This paper argues that this is a dangerous delusion. The standard framework of physics is governed by a deeply ingrained, yet unexamined, set of philosophical axioms we term "Atheistic Positivism." This philosophy, which denies its own existence, conflates measurement with reality, reifies constants as fundamental mysteries, and actively discourages foundational questioning. We contrast this with an explicit, alternative philosophy of "Structural Realism," which rigorously separates the concepts of invariant reality (the Planck Chart), conventional measurement (the SI Chart), and the constants that act as a relational bridge between them. By making these two philosophies and their axioms explicit, we demonstrate why an unexamined philosophy is a bad thing: it creates intractable pseudo-problems, prevents self-correction, and ultimately leads to stagnation. The path to the next revolution in physics does not lie in more complex calculations, but in a conscious upgrade of our philosophical operating system.

1. Introduction: The Philosophy that Denies It Is a Philosophy

The unofficial motto of post-war physics has been "shut up and calculate." This sentiment reflects a deep-seated belief that physics has transcended the need for philosophy. It is seen as a purely objective, empirical enterprise where the data is king and conceptual debates are a frivolous distraction.

This paper contends that this view is the single greatest barrier to progress in fundamental physics today. The "shut up and calculate" ethos is not an absence of philosophy; it is a very specific, and highly restrictive, philosophy that has become so dominant that it is now invisible to its practitioners. A scientific discipline that is unaware of its own foundational axioms cannot question them, and a discipline that cannot question its axioms cannot achieve a paradigm shift.

Our goal is to make the invisible visible. We will explicitly state the axioms of the standard framework's philosophy and contrast them with a more rigorous, conscious alternative.

2. The Unspoken Philosophy of the Standard Framework: Atheistic Positivism

We give the name "Atheistic Positivism" to the unexamined philosophy of mainstream physics. It is "Positivist" in that it elevates empirical observation to the status of ultimate reality. It is "Atheistic" in that it implicitly denies the existence of a deeper, simpler, generative order (like a Planck Chart) from which its observations precipitate.

The Unexamined Axioms of Atheistic Positivism:

1. Empirical Fundamentalism: The data, and the mathematical models that successfully predict it, are the only reality. There is nothing "underneath."

2. The Sanctity of Constants: The constants of nature (G, h, c) are fundamental, irreducible features of reality. Their numerical values are deep mysteries to be marveled at or explained by exotic theories (e.g., multiverses).

3. Predictive Pragmatism: The sole measure of a theory's truth is its ability to make accurate numerical predictions. Conceptual coherence, simplicity, and ontological clarity are secondary "aesthetic" concerns.

4. The Conflation of Model and Reality: The map is mistaken for the territory. The mathematical objects in our theories (wavefunctions, fields, etc.) are assumed to be direct representations of reality, not just components of our descriptive framework.

5. The Metaphysical Taboo: Questions about the nature of law, the meaning of measurement, or the architecture of theory are dismissed as "unscientific" or "mere philosophy."

3. A Conscious Alternative: Structural Realism and the Tripartite Framework

As a counterpoint, we present the explicit philosophy that underpins the work of Rogers and Cauchy. This philosophy, which aligns with "Structural Realism," is built on the rigorous separation of concerns.

The Explicit Axioms of Structural Realism:

1. Structural Realism: The fundamental, objective reality lies in the invariant structure of relationships between physical quantities (The Planck Chart), not in the numerical results of any single measurement.

2. Constants as Relational Bridges: The constants (G, h, c) are not part of reality. They are the numerical components of the Jacobian Bridge that translates between the invariant reality and our arbitrary human measurement systems.

3. Conceptual Coherence as a Prerequisite: A theory must be architecturally sound and logically coherent before its predictive power can be properly assessed. Simplicity and clarity are indicators of a correct model.

4. The Rigorous Separation of Concerns: It is a methodological imperative to distinguish between three ontologically distinct categories: Reality (the invariant proportions), Abstraction (the conventional units), and the Bridge (the constants).

5. Metaphysics as a Diagnostic Tool: Foundational questions about the nature of law and measurement are the most powerful tools for debugging our current theories and discovering their limitations.

4. A Comparative Analysis: Two Philosophies in Conflict

The stark difference between these two philosophies determines how a physicist views the entire world.

Concept	Atheistic Positivism (The Standard View)	Structural Realism (The Proposed View)
View of Physical Reality	The empirical data and the mathematical models that successfully fit it.	An underlying, invariant web of dimensionless proportions (The Planck Chart).
View of Measurement	A passive observation of pre-existing, concrete reality.	An active process of projecting the invariant reality onto an arbitrary, abstract grid (The SI Chart).
View of Constants (G, h, c)	Fundamental, mysterious properties of the universe that we discover.	Relational artifacts (Jacobians) that we create with our choice of units. They are part of the bridge, not reality.
View of Physical Law	A collection of unrelated empirical discoveries (E=mc², E=hf) that we patch together.	Inevitable, pairwise projections of the single, underlying structure of the Planck Chart.

5. The Danger of an Invisible Philosophy

Why is a philosophy that denies its own axioms a bad thing? It is dangerous because it mistakes the prison walls for the edge of the universe. An unexamined philosophy is a corrupted operating system that causes all applications to fail, while leading the user to blame the applications rather than the OS.

1. It Creates Intractable Pseudo-Problems: The "fine-tuning problem" is the quintessential example. It is a problem that only exists if you believe the constants are fundamental (Axiom #2 of AP). Under Structural Realism, the problem dissolves completely; it's a question about our conventions, not the cosmos. An invisible philosophy traps science in solving problems of its own making.

2. It Prevents Self-Correction: A key strength of science is its ability to self-correct. But if the axioms of a paradigm are invisible, they cannot be questioned or corrected. When experiments conflict with theory, the response is to add more complexity to the models (more epicycles, more dimensions) rather than questioning the foundational assumption that the model and reality are the same thing (Axiom #4 of AP).

3. It Leads to Stagnation: By forbidding foundational questions (Axiom #5 of AP), the standard framework locks itself into a state of incrementalism. It can refine the measurements of its sacred constants, but it cannot ask what they are. It can build ever-more-complex models, but it cannot ask if there is a simpler, generative architecture underneath. Progress towards the next great paradigm shift becomes impossible.

6. Conclusion

Physics is not suffering from a lack of data or mathematical talent. It is suffering from a philosophical crisis that it refuses to acknowledge. The standard framework is guided by an invisible, inherited philosophy of "Atheistic Positivism" that actively hinders the kind of foundational thinking required for the next revolution.

The alternative, "Structural Realism," does not ask physicists to stop doing physics. It asks them to become aware of the philosophical ground upon which they stand. By consciously separating reality from our measurement of it, by seeing the constants as the humble bridges they are, and by embracing the search for a simple, invariant structure, we can clear away the conceptual fog of the last century. We must stop trying to solve the riddles created by our own unexamined beliefs and start asking questions about the elegant, unified reality that lies waiting to be seen.