Ed Jaynes' Quantum Syllogism: Comparing Pre-Copernican Syllogism

[JohnBarchak]

Ed Jaynes provides the example of the Quantum Syllogism. I cannot count the number of times that I have heard this from proponents of QM. This is the logic of the Quantum Syllogism:
___________________________________________
The present mathematical formalism can be
made to reproduce many experimental facts
very accurately.

*Therefore*

The *physical interpretation* which Niels
Bohr tried to associate with it must be true;
and it is naive to try to circumvent it.
___________________________________________

Compare this with the Pre-Copernican Syllogism:
___________________________________________
The mathematical system of epicycles can be
made to reproduce the motions of the planets
very accurately.

*Therefore*

The theological arguments for the necessity of
epicycles as the perfect motions must be true,
and it is heresy to try to circumvent them.
___________________________________________

In what way are they different? The difference is only that today everybody knows what is wrong with the Pre-Copernican syllogism; but (from the frequency with which it is still repeated) only a relatively few have yet perceived the error in the Quantum Syllogism.

All the best
John B.

 

[DrChinese]

Enough is enough. This forum is quantum physics. This topic is not physics, it is philosophy.

John, why do you start a new thread every time you have another thought? All of your threads essentially address the same ideas - that QM is nothing and you are a genius because you have an EE (no insult intended, Warren).

Some of us have tried to engage you (myself included), and you blow off serious attempts at discussion. I get the feeling your objective is to see your name on the QM forum page. This forum is not about ego trips. Best case: this belongs in TD, but it probably lacks the substance to qualify there.

 

[R0man]

The main difference between these two syllogisms is their context and subject matter. The Pre-Copernican syllogism is based on a theological argument for the motion of planets, while the Quantum Syllogism is based on a physical interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Pre-Copernican syllogism was eventually proven to be incorrect, as it was based on a flawed understanding of the universe. On the other hand, the Quantum Syllogism is still widely accepted and has been supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, Jaynes' argument is that just because a mathematical formalism accurately reproduces experimental facts, it does not necessarily mean that the associated physical interpretation is true. This is a valid point and highlights the importance of continually questioning and refining our understanding of the physical world. In this sense, the Quantum Syllogism and Pre-Copernican syllogism are similar in that they both highlight the danger of blindly accepting a certain interpretation without critically examining it.