Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:47 am
This is amateur hour.
One he presents modern physics as unified around the Copenhagen interpretation. It isn't
Two, one of his appeals to authority it to the physicist Paul Marmet, but he couldn't even bother to read the whole essay which includes, in its conclusion....
You are too hasty without understanding the whole contexts of my stance from all the posts I had posted but rather judge merely from this post, thus amateurish;
It's the OP in a philosophy forum. Of course I am going to respond to what is written there. If it was part of a larger thread, then this response might make some sense, but even then the statements in this OP are problematic and misleading at best.
I am not familiar with the author nor I am bothered in this case.
It's not positive that your not bothered by being caught out appealing to authority and you don't understand that authority and further that authority actually contradicts your position. You're misrepresenting the physicist you quoted, you don't understand or care to understand the article. You're throwing it at people as if you've read and understood the article and as part of a condescending post. That it doesn't bother you when this is pointed out is easy to pretend online or even worse, if true, says something almost pathological about your relationship with being honest.
I did not introduce the article and I admit I did not read the whole article.
It was not my intention to justify my view based totally on the article as authority but merely to point out the article present the issue of the OP, i.e.
That's great, but note your use of the adverb totally. The article contradicts your use of it and your position. Perhaps he is not right, but you got caught throwing out quotes, out of context, in an appeal to authority, where you have not done basic work - it's a short articicle - nor have you understood the article or even what the portion you quoted entaisl.
The Copenhagen interpretation has its limitations but its basic fundamentals are still applicable to Quantum Mechanics.
this sounds like political speech. Vague, not really asserting anything and further not a response to what I said or the status of the Copenhagen Interpretation. You condescended to people who disagreed with you and wrote AS IF the Copenhagen interpretation or really interpretations are the consensus opinion of current physics. This is not correct.
And your reasserting that is it in an even vaguer way in this post is not even close to an argument.
For authority I had always reference this;
Yes, that's an article in Wikipedia on one philosophical position. Wikipedia has other articles with differeing opinions. What you referenced was not an authority but a description of a philosophical position that you agree with, presumably. Though actually you seem NOT to understand model dependent realism, because 1) it is a realism and elswhere you condescend to realists and 2) it is an epistemological and pragmatist position NOT an ontological position. YOu have taken repeatedly here an ontological anti-realist position. Again and again. YOu can even see in the shallow Wikipedia article that it does not reject reality in itself, which you have. So, if that's your authority you either don't understand it or only appeal to authority as far as it says what you want, but ignore it when it disagrees. Which means you don't hold the authority as an authority.
Relational quantum mechanics
this is a better appeal to authority since this position is closer in one way to the one you have taken in other threads, one irony being that in the Wikipedia article and more clearly in the writings of the actually people who hold this position, one can see how poorly you understand the Copenhagen Interpretation. But it is also further away from your position because
Observers
don't
have
to
be
human
Any physical system can collapse the wave, for ex
It's also not really an anti-realism and is associated with a variety of realisms, even if these realisms are different from the most common ones.
And of course there is no consensus in the physics community regarding the truth of this position, so a lot of the posturing in relation to realists is absurd.
It still smacks of amateur hour. Links and quotes of things not read or understood to bolster what are mainly assertions not arguments.
Hey, I read some of this and it seems to support me, maybe, kinda and this, which contradicts the other authority I just threw at you also supports me, well, at least in the part I want to quote, etc. does not a demonstration or even an argument make.