Page 3 of 4
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:36 pm
by Terrapin Station
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 2:04 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:05 am
So you didn't answer if you're familiar with the field of ontology. If you are, are you familiar with the notion of ontic simples?
In all my study of ontology, I have never run across that particular phrase, "ontic simples." The closest concept I've encountered in ontology to what that sounds like is some absurd notion called, "ontic vagueness." It sound quite esoteric to me.
Unfortunately, most of what goes by the name ontology today is a hodge-podge of ideas based on quantum physics which have nothing to do with ontology. Ah well!
It's not that unusual of a term. Basically, it's the ontological equivalent of an elementary particle.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:47 pm
by Atla
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:09 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:02 pm
how do you even choose which unrelated topics you want to mix in your brain?
I don't!
The nonlocal total determinism across the entire history of the universe determined all your experiences of me.
yes sometimes I wish those experiences could be changed
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:59 pm
by Skepdick
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:47 pm
yes sometimes I wish those experiences could be changed
Imagine all the possibilities that were superdetermined for you.
Psychedelics. Hookers&Blow. Exit the stage.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:12 pm
by Atla
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:59 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:47 pm
yes sometimes I wish those experiences could be changed
Imagine all the possibilities that were superdetermined for you.
Psychedelics. Hookers&Blow. Exit the stage.
think about it this way, it was already predetermined at the Big Bang that you wouldn't get a working brain.. so let's blame the damn Big Bang!
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:19 pm
by Skepdick
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:12 pm
think about it this way, it was already predetermined at the Big Bang that you wouldn't get a working brain.. so let's blame the damn Big Bang!
Thik about it even better. You wouldn't get why my brain works better than yours. So lets just blame the damn Big Bang!
That's equifinality right there
Logical confluence.
That's the sound of... inevitability.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:36 pm
by RCSaunders
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:36 pm
It's not that unusual of a term. Basically, it's the ontological equivalent of an elementary particle.
I don't doubt you. I've read a lot! of philosophy and philosophers and have just never run across that expression. Perhaps you can point to a source.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:02 pm
by Terrapin Station
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:36 pm
It's not that unusual of a term. Basically, it's the ontological equivalent of an elementary particle.
I don't doubt you. I've read a lot! of philosophy and philosophers and have just never run across that expression. Perhaps you can point to a source.
Here's an example of a paper that mentions simples a lot (the first occurrence is on page 537 in the last paragraph, but it's worth reading the whole paper as the topic is related to simples):
https://andrewmbailey.com/papers/bare_p ... /Davis.pdf
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:28 pm
by socrat44
Quantum ontology without speculation
Published: 30 January 2021
/ by Matthias Egg /
-------
Existing proposals concerning the ontology of quantum mechanics (QM) either involve speculation
that goes beyond the scientific evidence or abandon realism about large parts of QM.
This paper proposes a way out of this dilemma, by showing that QM as it is formulated
in standard textbooks allows for a much more substantive ontological commitment
than is usually acknowledged.
For this purpose, I defend a non-fundamentalist approach to ontology,
which is then applied to various aspects of QM. In particular, I will defend realism about spin,
which has been viewed as a particularly hard case for the ontology of QM.
#
How to be a realist about spin
The problem with spin
#
Against underdetermination about the ontology of spin
#
Against underdetermination about wave function collapse
#
This concludes (for the time being) my account of a non-speculative ontology for QM.
There are still ontological lessons to be learnt from QM, even if we refuse to engage in speculation.
---------
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-00346-1
---------------------
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:10 am
by RCSaunders
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:02 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 6:36 pm
It's not that unusual of a term. Basically, it's the ontological equivalent of an elementary particle.
I don't doubt you. I've read a lot! of philosophy and philosophers and have just never run across that expression. Perhaps you can point to a source.
Here's an example of a paper that mentions simples a lot (the first occurrence is on page 537 in the last paragraph, but it's worth reading the whole paper as the topic is related to simples):
https://andrewmbailey.com/papers/bare_p ... /Davis.pdf
Thanks for the link. Perhaps I'm not familiar with the, "simples," idea because I dismissed all ontologies that assumed some kind of underlying, "substrate," to which attributes pertain, as in this example from the article:
Aristotle and Plato in terms of some external (spatio-temporal) relation in which they stand. For example, suppose that Aristotle and Plato stand in theis six inches from relation; it then follows that they must occupy distinct spatio-temporal locations and thus count as distinct spots. However, as Moreland and Mertzrightly observe, this individuative solution will not work; for a pair of objects to occupy distinct spatio-temporal locations, those objects must already be distinct.
What's wrong with all of that is the notion that existents are something to which attributes are applied or which attributes, in someway, cause to be what they are. First of all, an ontological entity is whatever its intrinsic attributes (qualities, properties, characteristics) are and no two ontological entities can be identical, that is, every entitiy must have some attribute that is different from all other entities or it does not exist. An entity's attributes do not make an entity what it is, they are what it is.
Secondly, what is called, "position," is only the identification of a relationship between entities. The basic relationship between all entities is position. If two things are perceived their relationship in the field of perception is their position in that field. From that comes the concept of space and the idea that two things cannot occupy the same space or position.
The concepts of position and change can actually describe all physical phenomena. A change in position is motion. A change in motion is acceleration. Mass, force, and energy can all be explained in terms of motion and acceleration.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 4:30 am
by Atla
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:19 pm
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 7:12 pm
think about it this way, it was already predetermined at the Big Bang that you wouldn't get a working brain.. so let's blame the damn Big Bang!
Thik about it even better. You wouldn't get why my brain works better than yours. So lets just blame the damn Big Bang!
That's equifinality right there
Logical confluence.
That's the sound of... inevitability.
well somehow everyone fails to see your genius, you must be above all other humans by now
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:21 am
by socrat44
Quantum Mechanics, Plato’s Cave and the Blind Piranha
Can we ever really know the world?
/ By John Horgan on July 24, 2021/
-------.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... TA4eOPNU6E
----------------------.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:44 pm
by Skepdick
Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 4:30 am
well somehow everyone fails to see your genius, you must be above all other humans by now
Naaaah, it is all happening according to the superdetermined plan.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 2:16 pm
by Terrapin Station
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 1:10 am
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:02 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:36 pm
I don't doubt you. I've read a lot! of philosophy and philosophers and have just never run across that expression. Perhaps you can point to a source.
Here's an example of a paper that mentions simples a lot (the first occurrence is on page 537 in the last paragraph, but it's worth reading the whole paper as the topic is related to simples):
https://andrewmbailey.com/papers/bare_p ... /Davis.pdf
Thanks for the link. Perhaps I'm not familiar with the, "simples," idea because I dismissed all ontologies that assumed some kind of underlying, "substrate," to which attributes pertain, as in this example from the article:
Aristotle and Plato in terms of some external (spatio-temporal) relation in which they stand. For example, suppose that Aristotle and Plato stand in theis six inches from relation; it then follows that they must occupy distinct spatio-temporal locations and thus count as distinct spots. However, as Moreland and Mertzrightly observe, this individuative solution will not work; for a pair of objects to occupy distinct spatio-temporal locations, those objects must already be distinct.
What's wrong with all of that is the notion that existents are something to which attributes are applied or which attributes, in someway, cause to be what they are. First of all, an ontological entity is whatever its intrinsic attributes (qualities, properties, characteristics) are and no two ontological entities can be identical, that is, every entitiy must have some attribute that is different from all other entities or it does not exist. An entity's attributes do not make an entity what it is, they are what it is.
Secondly, what is called, "position," is only the identification of a relationship between entities. The basic relationship between all entities is position. If two things are perceived their relationship in the field of perception is their position in that field. From that comes the concept of space and the idea that two things cannot occupy the same space or position.
The concepts of position and change can actually describe all physical phenomena. A change in position is motion. A change in motion is acceleration. Mass, force, and energy can all be explained in terms of motion and acceleration.
Yeah, I also don't at all agree with the notion of "bare particulars," but the issue of ontic simples doesn't hinge on that. Ontic simples again are rather like the idea of elementary particles (and on some accounts, the two would be an identical issue). If there aren't elementary particles (ontic simples), then we kind of have a "turtles all the way down" problem, but if there are elementary particles (ontic simples), it's not necessarily the easiest thing to identify them.
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:28 pm
by seeds
That's a pretty good article, socrat44, and it is apparent that at least one of the participants in this thread (he knows who I'm talking about) is
completely fooled by the shadows in our little cave.
_______
Re: Can Physics Be Too Speculative? / by Sabine Hossenfelder /
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2021 6:05 pm
by Atla
seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 5:28 pm
That's a pretty good article, socrat44, and it is apparent that at least one of the participants in this thread (he knows who I'm talking about) is
completely fooled by the shadows in our little cave.
_______
I've been thinking about QM for 10 years. As we are leaving that particular cave, one of the first things we realize is that people who are like
"Boohoo we don't know the correct interpretation of QM, therefore my version of a Berkeleyen God and my seeds theory and all that holographic shit surely must be true, but people are too dumb to get it!"
can be gently pushed aside.