Quantum Wittgenstein

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
socrat44
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by socrat44 »

Quantum Wittgenstein
Metaphysical debates in quantum physics don’t get at ‘truth’ – they’re nothing but a form of ritual, activity and culture
/Timothy Andersenis principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute/ Edited by Sally Davies
------------
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein ... YuylgOpJiY
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by Skepdick »

socrat44 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:30 am Quantum Wittgenstein
Metaphysical debates in quantum physics don’t get at ‘truth’ – they’re nothing but a form of ritual, activity and culture
/Timothy Andersenis principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute/ Edited by Sally Davies
------------
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein ... YuylgOpJiY
The above article summed up in a comic.

Image
socrat44
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by socrat44 »

Skepdick wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:29 am
socrat44 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:30 am Quantum Wittgenstein
Metaphysical debates in quantum physics don’t get at ‘truth’ – they’re nothing but a form of ritual, activity and culture
/Timothy Andersenis principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute/ Edited by Sally Davies
------------
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein ... YuylgOpJiY
The above article summed up in a comic.

Image
You are right.
Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely convincing, when other say:
''If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it'' /John Wheeler/
''Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense'' /Roger Penrose/
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

socrat44 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:30 am Quantum Wittgenstein
Metaphysical debates in quantum physics don’t get at ‘truth’ – they’re nothing but a form of ritual, activity and culture
/Timothy Andersenis principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute/ Edited by Sally Davies
------------
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein ... YuylgOpJiY
The article is a very good read as a refresher.

Obviously we cannot directly associate Wittgenstein with Quantum Physics per se.

However the philosophy of the later-Wittgenstein does have some relation in principles with Quantum Physics, i.e. there is no absolutely independent reality.
As I had argued, what is fact [reality and truths] must be conditioned to a specific Framework and System of Knowledge.
That would include objective moral facts [not subjective beliefs nor opinions] as conditioned upon a specific Moral FSK.
As a scientist and mathematician, Wittgenstein has challenged my own tendency to seek out interpretations of phenomena that have no scientific value – and to see such explanations as nothing more than narratives.
He taught that all that philosophy can do is remind us of what is evidently true.
It’s evidently true that the wavefunction has a multiverse interpretation, but one must assume the multiverse first, since it cannot be measured.
So the interpretation is a tautology, not a discovery.

I have humbled myself to the fact that we can’t justify clinging to one interpretation of reality over another. In place of my early enthusiastic Platonism, I have come to think of the world not as one filled with sharply defined truths, but rather as a place containing myriad possibilities – each of which, like the possibilities within the wavefunction itself, can be simultaneously true.
Likewise, mathematics and its surrounding language don’t represent reality so much as serve as a trusty tool for helping people to navigate the world.
They are of human origin and for human purposes.

To shut up and calculate, then, recognises that there are limits to our pathways for understanding. Our only option as scientists is to look, predict and test. This might not be as glamorous an offering as the interpretations we can construct in our minds, but it is the royal road to real knowledge.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein ... YuylgOpJiY
What counts is whether the associated philosophy can contribute to the well being of the individual[s] and that of humanity.
Quantum Physics despite being 'weird and spooky' has contributed tremendous utility to mankind since its emergence to the present and will continue to contribute more in the future.
socrat44
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by socrat44 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 6:43 am
socrat44 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:30 am Quantum Wittgenstein
Metaphysical debates in quantum physics don’t get at ‘truth’ – they’re nothing but a form of ritual, activity and culture
/Timothy Andersenis principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute/ Edited by Sally Davies
------------
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein ... YuylgOpJiY
The article is a very good read as a refresher.

Obviously we cannot directly associate Wittgenstein with Quantum Physics per se.

However the philosophy of the later-Wittgenstein does have some relation in principles with Quantum Physics, i.e. there is no absolutely independent reality.
Quantum physics is about microcosm.
Quantum physics studies the behavior of quantum particles.
Quantum particles are real.
Are quantum particles absolutely independent?
Einstein said:
" I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements.
That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured.
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Then, what kind of reality does a quantum particle describe?
---
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

socrat44 wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 10:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 6:43 am
socrat44 wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:30 am Quantum Wittgenstein
Metaphysical debates in quantum physics don’t get at ‘truth’ – they’re nothing but a form of ritual, activity and culture
/Timothy Andersenis principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute/ Edited by Sally Davies
------------
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein ... YuylgOpJiY
The article is a very good read as a refresher.

Obviously we cannot directly associate Wittgenstein with Quantum Physics per se.

However the philosophy of the later-Wittgenstein does have some relation in principles with Quantum Physics, i.e. there is no absolutely independent reality.
Quantum physics is about microcosm.
Quantum physics studies the behavior of quantum particles.
Quantum particles are real.
Are quantum particles absolutely independent?

Einstein said:
" I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements.
That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured.
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

Then, what kind of reality does a quantum particle describe?
---
Einstein resisted the findings of Quantum Physics with his above and his points were subsequently refuted. Quantum Physics despite its 'weird and spooky' attributes has since contributed tremendous utility to mankind.

Note the later thinkings in Physics;
Model-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist.
It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything.
The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model.[2]
The term "model-dependent realism" was coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book, The Grand Design.[3]
socrat44
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by socrat44 »

Einstein adopted the importance of quantum physics, but . . .
Attachments
Einstein-QP.jpg
Einstein-QP.jpg (16.38 KiB) Viewed 1611 times
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by Iwannaplato »

I have humbled myself to the fact that we can’t justify clinging to one interpretation of reality over another. In place of my early enthusiastic Platonism, I have come to think of the world not as one filled with sharply defined truths, but rather as a place containing myriad possibilities – each of which, like the possibilities within the wavefunction itself, can be simultaneously true.
From the OP article.
If we take this as an interpretation, then it is a metaphysical stance, which would be hypocritical. But he could be saying 'this is what I do', then he's not being hypocritical. IOW if he says we cannot have one interpretation of reality, because reality is a place containing myriad possibilites, it sounds like a clear if complicated ontological assertion. Which would be a problem given he is saying we cannot have one interpretation, because it would be one.

But if he is being sort of pragmatic or simply honest and saying...here's my heuristic, alright.
socrat44
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: Quantum Wittgenstein

Post by socrat44 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 2:52 pm
I have humbled myself to the fact that we can’t justify clinging to one interpretation of reality over another. In place of my early enthusiastic Platonism, I have come to think of the world not as one filled with sharply defined truths, but rather as a place containing myriad possibilities – each of which, like the possibilities within the wavefunction itself, can be simultaneously true.
From the OP article.
If we take this as an interpretation, then it is a metaphysical stance, which would be hypocritical. But he could be saying 'this is what I do', then he's not being hypocritical. IOW if he says we cannot have one interpretation of reality, because reality is a place containing myriad possibilites, it sounds like a clear if complicated ontological assertion. Which would be a problem given he is saying we cannot have one interpretation, because it would be one.

But if he is being sort of pragmatic or simply honest and saying...here's my heuristic, alright.
Science does not play with subjective opinions (even those expressed
by as great scientist as Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein)
Post Reply