quantum

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
raw_thought
Posts: 1775
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

quantum

Post by raw_thought »

Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: quantum

Post by Scott Mayers »

raw_thought wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!
I agree that your example is fair to the confusion of interpretations. But you say that the "core of LP (is not) empirical". Logic is as much inferred to us 'empirically' but this is not true, even if this may also be thought of by some calling themselves, 'logical posivists.' See my post I just responded to:

Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

I responded to the confusion regarding the rationale of the 'positivists' by intention of the original people receiving this label. I give some examples that may help understand the distinction of the meanings.

As to quantum physics' interpretations, some interpret the expression of the scientific theories of the 'wierd' as implying nature is itself 'weird'. Others believe that you should not accept the 'weird' interpretation but rather sustain judgement about the literal reality even while accepting the utility of the methodology unless it is no longer weird.

For instance, the slit experiment that demonstrates an interference pattern that seems 'weird'. Some, like Heisenburg, postulated that when we 'observe' something, even passively (or 'in principle' regardless of whether this effect is about some active or passive interference), is literally demonstrated by experiments about the slit experiment. But is not the very interference pattern an 'observation' that can be thought of as being similarly flawed?

The "Copenhagen" interpretation suggests that the phenomena means that it is literally true that the phenomena of duality exists but instantly 'collapses' to one unique reality for merely looking. But the error can be that they falsely assume that light requires being only a particle or a wave but not both when we observe it. This confuses the issue for the very question that the pattern is itself 'observed'. Others question whether science is permitted to speak on interpretion at all. As such, some scientists resist a willingness to debate this and why they may feel that this is 'philosophy' that should be treated distinctly. However, this can be hypocritical because even those presuming they are NOT being 'philosophical' are still proposing some 'weirdness' as though it is 'in principle' non-resolvable. If they should expect that philosophy should not play a role, then they have no right to propose expressions that attempt to interpret nor explain possible causation.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: quantum

Post by jayjacobus »

Quantum observations MIGHT suggest that there are alternative realities; one which proceeds from cause to effect and another, at least on a subatomic level, that proceeds from effect to cause.

That might explain quantum physics.

If it does, it may upset many of the ways scientists explain the universe, time and other phenomenon.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: quantum

Post by gaffo »

raw_thought wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!
not sure of your origin point of this thread - but welcome your clarification.

Quantum Mechanics/Physics is not the whole picture, and why we have Einstien with is GR/SR.

those two cannot be forced to fit into one "unified theory" of reality..............after 70 yrs to date.

when/if they can in the future, great! and then we understand the universe.

not until then though. something is missing - something big, so we lack understanding.

it may be beyond our nature to understand. or maybe some genius will show up - like 100 yrs ago and unify all things.
Post Reply