Nobel Prize for Physics 2022 awarded to 3 scientists for work in Quantum Mechanics

[Age]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

This is how I feel about it too, but I've realized that most philosophers are remarkably uncomfortable with quantum physics. On every philosophy forum that has a physics section, you'll find people denying QM much more frequently than people accepting it.

Which is really weird, because QM is so fascinating from a philosophical perspective, but it's like... it's like philosophers are as close minded to actual physics as philosophers think scientists are to philosophy.

Philosophers reject QM because it's too weird for them. They can't accept anything that suggests the world operates in a much stranger fashion than we're used to thinking about. I would have thought that if ANYBODY would be open minded to that idea, it would have been philosophers, but that turns out to be the opposite of the truth.

Comming to a philosophy forum does not necessitate that you will find a so-called "philosopher".

Also do you REALLY BELIEVE that ALL "philosophers" reject, absolutely or outright, quantum physics?

And, do ALL "philosophers" do this because quantum mechanics is REALLY 'too wired' for ALL of them?

As for your last sentence, this just PROVES how CKOSED you REALLY ARE.

[Iwannaplato]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

This is how I feel about it too, but I've realized that most philosophers are remarkably uncomfortable with quantum physics. On every philosophy forum that has a physics section, you'll find people denying QM much more frequently than people accepting it.

Which is really weird, because QM is so fascinating from a philosophical perspective, but it's like... it's like philosophers are as close minded to actual physics as philosophers think scientists are to philosophy.

Philosophers reject QM because it's too weird for them. They can't accept anything that suggests the world operates in a much stranger fashion than we're used to thinking about. I would have thought that if ANYBODY would be open minded to that idea, it would have been philosophers, but that turns out to be the opposite of the truth.

I would tend to say that most people who come to philosophy forums are interested in philosophy, not that they are philosophers, myself included in the exclusion. That said, I find people in philosophy forums often very interested in discussing qm, with a number drawing all sorts of unwarrented conclusions from what they (think they) know about, another group that reacts with great anger to even cautious explorations beyond everyday common sense based on QM, to people who think they can prove that the Copenhagen interpretation is wrong and the like, despite being even less physicists than philosophers. You would think that QM would lead to a certain caution about dismissing things based on common sense (or one of the various common senses) out there. And I agree, I would expect philosophers to find it interesting.

[socrat44]

You would think that QM would lead to a certain caution about dismissing things based on common sense (or one of the various common senses) out there. And I agree, I would expect philosophers to find it interesting.

Book “Facing Up”
“I think few philosophers of science take it (discussing questions about scientific knowledge)
as part of their job description to help scientists in their research. . . . " / page 84/
“ . . . If they (philosophers) haven’t done that job, too bad for them”
/page 104, by Steven Weinberg /
#
One big philosophical idea is missing in physics . . .
‘’ . . . at least one big idea is missing. How do we find that missing idea?’’
/ Book: ‘’ The trouble with Physics’’ Page 308. by Lee Smolin /

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You would think that QM would lead to a certain caution about dismissing things based on common sense (or one of the various common senses) out there. And I agree, I would expect philosophers to find it interesting.

Book “Facing Up”
“I think few philosophers of science take it (discussing questions about scientific knowledge)
as part of their job description to help scientists in their research. . . . " / page 84/
“ . . . If they (philosophers) haven’t done that job, too bad for them”
/page 104, by Steven Weinberg /
#
One big philosophical idea is missing in physics . . .
‘’ . . . at least one big idea is missing. How do we find that missing idea?’’
/ Book: ‘’ The trouble with Physics’’ Page 308. by Lee Smolin /

Well that was pointless...

And is that 'meme' really 'quoteworthy'? Is there anyone who can be 'quoted' as saying: 'Quantam mechanics makes sense'?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If there is truly no 'hidden variable' and no error then QM makes sense. It can't be otherwise. No wonder all the god-botherers are slithering out of the woodwork. Ooh. Confused physicists. Proof of 'god'.

There was that 'discovery' a few years ago of particles that travelled at faster than the speed of light. It was quickly disproven because it made no sense.

[socrat44]

What did the 2022 Nobel Prize winners in physics discover in depth?
Quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory.
Classical locality doesn't work in quantum physics.
The quantum theory is fundamentally nonlocal.
Overall, the 2022 Nobel prize recognises that the fundamental nature of our physical world is still unknown.
"We have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."
/Anton Zeilinger, the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022/
---
"We have quantum mechanics; we don't have quantum philosophy" /Schrödinger/
-----

[Flannel Jesus]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

Just concluded another qm discussion on a separate philosophy forum, where the person I was talking with basically had the position that "no experiment or evidence trumps my common sense world view."

That seems to be the most common take of philosophers that reject qm entirely like that: maintaining their common sense is the #1 most important thing, and anything that's a bit challenging must be rejected wholesale.

[Iwannaplato]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

Just concluded another qm discussion on a separate philosophy forum, where the person I was talking with basically had the position that "no experiment or evidence trumps my common sense world view."

That seems to be the most common take of philosophers that reject qm entirely like that: maintaining their common sense is the #1 most important thing, and anything that's a bit challenging must be rejected wholesale.

the old argument from incredulity.

[socrat44]

Just concluded another qm discussion on a separate philosophy forum, where the person I was talking with basically had the position that "no experiment or evidence trumps my common sense world view."

That seems to be the most common take of philosophers that reject qm entirely like that: maintaining their common sense is the #1 most important thing, and anything that's a bit challenging must be rejected wholesale.

If I am a reasonable person, then why is quantum physics so strange, paradoxical, confusing?
/opinion of some philosophers of science/

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Strange. Probably the single most profound and important discovery in science AND philosophy and there are fuck all comments about it.

Just concluded another qm discussion on a separate philosophy forum, where the person I was talking with basically had the position that "no experiment or evidence trumps my common sense world view."

That seems to be the most common take of philosophers that reject qm entirely like that: maintaining their common sense is the #1 most important thing, and anything that's a bit challenging must be rejected wholesale.

Then they clearly don't enjoy 'thinking' at all. What could be more fascinating to anyone who likes to think? I will be disappointed if a 'hidden variable' is found, but I have a feeling it has something to do with the 'entanglement', which effectively makes two particles one.

[Flannel Jesus]

The bell tests at least apparently outrule any hidden variables, which is consistent with so many other experiments in QM already. The naive view of quantum phenomena is insufficient, permanently imo. Which is fascinating but also a bit anxiety inducing

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The bell tests at least apparently outrule any hidden variables, which is consistent with so many other experiments in QM already. The naive view of quantum phenomena is insufficient, permanently imo. Which is fascinating but also a bit anxiety inducing

What do you mean by 'naive view'? Are you saying that just because they have unanswered questions then that must be permanent, and QM is unltimately 'unknowable'? That seems a bit defeatest.

ps. I prefer by far Brian Greene's 'pink hair' analogy to Schrodinger's cat

[Flannel Jesus]

What do you mean by 'naive view'? Are you saying that just because they have unanswered questions then that must be permanent, and QM is unltimately 'unknowable'? That seems a bit defeatest.

I'm not saying qm is unknowable. The naive view is that just because we don't know the spin, for example, of a particle doesn't mean it's not really there, set prior to measurement. That's what Bell's Theorem was created to settle, and the naive view is wrong and qm is right - the spin is apparently genuinely indeterminate prior to measurement.

That's all

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What do you mean by 'naive view'? Are you saying that just because they have unanswered questions then that must be permanent, and QM is unltimately 'unknowable'? That seems a bit defeatest.

I'm not saying qm is unknowable. The naive view is that just because we don't know the spin, for example, of a particle doesn't mean it's not really there, set prior to measurement. That's what Bell's Theorem was created to settle, and the naive view is wrong and qm is right - the spin is apparently genuinely indeterminate prior to measurement.

That's all

Ok. Thanks.