oxymoron ? unfortunately, that doesn't apply, it denotes a contrast, and "mysticist physicists" are all too common. it _should_ be oxymoronic, if there were such a compound term. seems to me you're looking for a term denoting their near interchangeability, in some cases.
knew _i'd_ say that. gee, what tipped you off ? hmm, well ok. so clearly you yourself are aware of the potential contradictions in such material. yet you continue to be fascinated by them. still looking for a soul, perhaps ? the inexplicable got you worried ?
yet sometimes what _is_ of interest in that subject matter is that right at the edge before they fall off into the mystical, the thinking processes get very interesting, and there starts to develop the potential for patterns of solution. then it's as if their brains break, and poof! there they go. seems, maybe, that if they could suspend that impulse indefinitely, and continue on in the rational mode, that there is where genius lies. but many fail. or so far, apparently _all_. the string theorists took a different route, backing away from the edge, applying interesting maths, yet they have not run into the urge for mysticism. kinda makes me think they aren't near anything. also, it seems that any system of sufficient complexity can be claimed to have explanatory power for systems of arbitrary configuration. think of it as a sort of corollary to godel's theorem; it seems to be in the same concept space, anyway. oddly, the fermi paradox and the (fallacies of the) drake equation seem related as well.
the assumption is that the "solution" to the universe is found in mathematics. this may or may not be true. if not - interesting things follow. if so, then one should be able to compare the complexity, etc. of the system being explained with the system proposed for the explanation, and thereby describe some bounding nature of the minimum and maximum complexity of the solution, etc. in fact, there should be sufficient description of the nature of solution sets in general. in other words, no need for occam's razor (ockham, whatever), since _all_ approaches should be described at that level, and it is that superset that should be the "correct" solution.
but it is possible, as it is with some computer programs, that the only description possible is complete emulation. in other words, an algorithm cannot be produced that is shorter than the output itself. mathematics - any language - is a form of algorithmic shorthand.
so it seems to be that there is much undisciplined and ill considered effort in the sciences. a metascience is needed to forge an improved - a _scientific_ - approach to science. this does get written about here and there, but is not a separate discipline. philosophy of science seems the closest. (what i'm looking for might be described as a "metascience engineer")
so, mysticism. it seems to arise due to this lack of discipline. of course, if, for example, it could be concluded that the solutions are _not_ found in mathematics, these types would have a field day. still, there must be a rational form of expression exterior to mathematics, still contained within the bounds of reality. but due to complexity and other concerns, such things may not be "knowable" to the likes of us. this concept could use more work as well, since if we could determine the limits of our own knowability (our relationship with reality), we may also be able to posit the minimum system which does possess sufficient knowability (in relation to the system in question - here, the universe).
but i would think, considering that all is part of a total indivisible system, that if "we" cannot know something, that, by definition, includes all we can create or become. conversely, if anything on that creative/evolutionary path can know something, that is "we" - but perhaps not here/now, to "our" (more limited form) personal satisfactions.
the unknowability case is interesting, because it would mean that such knowledge would alway remain foreign to anything we can accomplish, throughout eternity. which defines a bounded subjective universe, the limits of our potential experiential existence. and i think that such limits _do_ exist - _must_ exist. kind of a "no shit" moment. so, the dominoes begin to topple backwards through all this - meaning, in many undertakings, we can't get there from here.
and so we fill the gaps with mysticism. may as well; perhaps it's the best we can ever do. and if you don't like that conclusion, then you must dismiss the mysticism.
"a quark is not god", you mean ;-)
are the concepts of mysticism and the possibility of complete knowledge mutually exclusive ? seems so, yet it also seems to be the same peronality type that believes in both. typical irrationalism.
the flights of fancy are fine with me. just don't try and pass it off as science, as you say. i think imaginative processes can be helpful, but you are right, there are some damaging patterns as well. irreversible ? probably not. i guess it depends on your definition of "damage", since even if eventually reversed, the interim period could be considered irretrievable opportunity lost. or it may depend on the net gain or loss over all periods resulting from various mental excursions. in which case, the equations could drastically change with significantly increased (or decreased) life spans.
(damage, eh. then are the scifi flights of fancy potentially damaging, sometimes, too ?)
interesting - which means, of course, that our lifespans are fundamental to our worldviews. but the practical extension of this - what would religions look like, for example ? would more (or less) bizarre mental - and cultural - excursions be acceptable ? heinlein and robinson have played with longevity and a bit of its impact on worldview. not enough, though.
i suspect the limits on knowledge are more fundamental than biology (and physics) - our brains are not the problem. if there is a limit to rational expressive systems themselves, then _no_ existence can become arbitrarily knowledgeable. and it doesn't even matter how you define "knowledge". yet unknowability is not support for irrationalism. (and this fact is important to the study of probablility and "uncertainty", which is where many physicists "lose it".)
yep, i am projecting my own past onto your interest there, i think. that's not where i currently am, however. i guess i just don't see the attraction of that stuff otherwise. just enjoying their flights of fancy, then ? as fiction ? "it forces me to educate or reaffirm what I know" - how so ? what is it that you "know" ?
yep, knowing constraints and (formerly) implicit assumptions is helpful. they may or may not be relevant to the day to day work of some mathematicians (and physicists), hard to say when it applies ahead of time. but hindsight does seem to show cases where such explicit considerations were ignored, with unfortunate consequences. and sometimes we may never know what roads were never traveled.