Is classical mechanics philosophically sound?

  • #1
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,223
3,113

Main Question or Discussion Point

But the usual interpretations of "uncertainty" and "approximately" are subjective.
They are subjective even in the classical, nonrelativistic mechanics of a pendulum, since the notions appear when you try to relate the theory to a real pendulum. In classical, nonrelativistic mechanics, the interpretation of the words ''observation'', ''experiment'' and ''measurement'' needed to build a proper bridge between classical theory and reality are also subjective. (The respective definitions in the wikipedia pages linked to contain many unexplained words whose meaning is as subjective as those of the above two words, or even more.)

So why do you regard classical, nonrelativistic few-particle mechanics as philosophically sound, but complain about foundational problems in quantum mechanics?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Jilang

Answers and Replies

  • #2
348
80
Subjectivity as you yourself say has some explanation in Classical mechanics which works with some axioms like point particle etc. But subjectivity in QM does not have any explanation may be classical explanation!
 
  • #3
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,401
2,578
They are subjective even in the classical, nonrelativistic mechanics of a pendulum, since the notions appear when you try to relate the theory to a real pendulum. In classical, nonrelativistic mechanics, the interpretation of the words ''observation'', ''experiment'' and ''measurement'' needed to build a proper bridge between classical theory and reality are also subjective. (The respective definitions in the wikipedia pages linked to contain many unexplained words whose meaning is as subjective as those of the above two words, or even more.)

So why do you regard classical, nonrelativistic few-particle mechanics as philosophically sound, but complain about foundational problems in quantum mechanics?
I don't have any problems with things being subjective. I was just objecting to your claim that using "expectations" instead of "probabilities" makes any difference, in principle.
 
  • #4
A. Neumaier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
2019 Award
7,223
3,113
I don't have any problems with things being subjective. I was just objecting to your claim that using "expectations" instead of "probabilities" makes any difference, in principle.
It makes no difference only in the sense that ultimately everything said on any subject boils down to using imprecise language.

But if you take this to mean that it makes no difference in principle - then there is no difference, in principle, between ancient subjective divination and modern objective science, between quantum mechanics and crackpot alternatives, or between an interpretation of quantum mechanics and shut-up-and-calculate.

You found a very elegant solution to all philosophical problems - you simply hide them under the universal rug of subjectivity. This solves everything, in principle. Congratulations!
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Is classical mechanics philosophically sound?

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
635
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
65
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
973
Top