Is Quantum Mechanics the Real Problem in Understanding Nature?

[reilly]

Schrodinger's Dog writes:
I do think though that looking into other alternatives isn't a bad idea, after all who knows what they may find to either support or cast doubt on QM?

Quote:
Originally Posted by reilly

6. How can anyone who does not have at least a few years of experience with QM, after school, be a legitimate critic of QM?

You could ask that of most critics, where's the harm in questioning scientific mainstream even if it is misinformed(out of the mouths of babes) That which does not kill science makes it stronger.

Didn't Einstein once say I looked in the mirror for ten years and that's the only theoretical physisist I saw? Perhaps he should of stuck to the mainstream too?
>>>>>...

RA writes:
Don't forget, Einstein (and Bohr, Picasso, Charlie Parker, Wagner, and ...) was at least a bit unique. Perhaps if we could see Einstein in the mirror we might do astonishing things as well.

And, don't forget that Einstein was well educated in the physics of his time; he was a pro.

If you read a few books, Greene, Pagels or whoever, about QM you certainly know something, but not much. Further, for expository considerations, authors of lay books and articles tend to accentuate the drama of QM's peculiar characteristics. Generally these lay books tend to be sketchy at best about the empirical origins of QM, detailed knowledge of which is essential, repeat essential, to understanding QM.

Whether in the law, medicine, the arts, fine carpentry, and so on, the "just-out-of-school" youngster knows enough to be dangerous, and, all too often with the arrogance of youth, is dangerous. For Bohr and Einstein, for example, this situation led to great things. For me, and many others, this situation led to rapped knuckles and skinned knees. It takes a few years of practice to get things down. If you were busted, rightly or wrongly, for murder, would you want an old pro or Reese Witherspoon as your attorney?

Would you pilot an airplane after reading a couple of books on flying?

Would you have your next door neighbor, a superior mechanic, take your kid's tonsils out?

Suppose you are an investor, and someone approaches you with a scheme supposedly based on QM. This person want's to exploit the "fact" that an object can be in more than one place at a time. You have a kid taking high school physics, and you know a very smart attorney who reads about QM and physics quite extensively (my oldest son, for example). There's also a good physics department in town. Who do you ask for advice?

If you have not struggled with normalization of continuous spectra eigenstates, or Clebsch-Gordon coefficients, or the Stark Effect in hydrogen, or Coloumb scattering, or low-energy neutron -crystal lattice scattering, or the hyrdrogen atom according to the Dirac Eq., or ... you have at best a superficial knowledge of QM. As always, the devil is in the details.

Nothing wrong with questioning. But, in my opinion, too many keep asking the same questions, and, somehow forget to learn much. It is amazing to me that the criticisms of QM and relativity, for that matter, have not changed much in the 40+ years I've been familiar with physics. But, the main-stream during this time has quite revolutionized our view of the universe in the small and the large. (There's not a lot of hope for garage bands in physics.)


However, the role of detailed and experienced understanding in creativity is another matter. Who knows? Off hand, I can't think of a naif who's made a highly significant contribution to science. No doubt I'm wrong.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wonderful post Reilly. And don't forget that Einstein and Bohr were both well trained scientifically by the time they started publishing. Bohr was doing a postdoc equiv with Rutherford when he developed the "old quantum theory".

 

[rewebster]

yes--nice post---ra

vanesch
Intelligence is the ability to solve problems.





Maybe timespace will tell






From post #26---I have a long hypothesis about magnetite particles in cells--what if they are ROM packets? why are there magnetite particles in there in the first place? Organized rust on plastic holds quite a bit of memory---why can't organized rust in a cell hold memory---the human brain has an immense amount of magnetite particles in those cells --and why are they there? If they do hold memory, can they be accessed by some external process?--do more (they) form as more 'experiences' occur to that individual (or cell)--[that would be a fairly easy and possible experiment] --I haven't seen anything written concerning this possibility of magnetite particles containing data---they do exist in certain cells of certain animals---why only certain cells?---wouldn't that be amazing if they did have the ability to hold memory?

Wouldn't it be fun to try to find out?

--Of course, this is all just my hypothesis.

 

[reilly]

self Adjoint and rewebster-- Thanks for your kind words.

Let's tackle the measurement problem, which, I think, applies to all the sciences, and the social sciences as well. When we make measurements on classical or quantum systems we know that we will encounter errors. That is sufficient to create a measurement problem, even if you are willing to accept a value in a 95% (or 90% or whatever) confidence interval. You cannot predict an individual measurement -- counting apples, or whatever is not relevant for our discussion. So, our classical predictions are made with real numbers; our measurements are not. That's a problem,

The fundamental issue: for measurements of variables or properties described by a single real number, why, in Nature do we obtain a single number for a measurement? Why are ensembles of measurements stable in the sense that they obey the various Laws of large Numbers? The plain fact is that, when brought to the empirical world, classical physics is probabalistic in Nature, and, hence, is subject to the vicissitudes of probability collapse.

Worse, actual classical dynamics involves retarded quantities. It's not at all clear to me how to deal with retarded systems with many particles -- initial conditions are a bear-- you can get a sense of the problems by looking at a system of two particles interacting through lagged forces, any kind that you want..

Classical ain't as nice as we sometimes think -- cf chaos and nonlinear dynamics, as well.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[rewebster]

my first and simplest answer about measurements is knowing what you are measuring


the second is what are you using to measure with


the third is in what relation are you relating your measurements and your measuring device to


maybe the first should be--why are you measuring it in the first place?



Using a math equation on an approximation (unknown) is still a mathematical approximation--no matter how long the equation and proof

 

[koantum]

How can anyone who does not have at least a few years of experience with QM, after school, be a legitimate critic of QM?

There is a huge literature out there on deep questions about consciousness and free will, with contributions from philosophers, psychologists, neuroscientists, information theorists, and (under "also ran") a handful of physicists.

How can anyone who lacks familiarity with a somewhat representative part of this literature—not just a set of measure zero—offer "answers" to those questions?

Again, there is a considerable professional literature discussing the philosophical issues raised by contemporary physics, including the so-called "measurement problem". The vast majority of physicists substitutes its blissful ignorance of these deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics with a naïve semiclassical hotchpotch of mutually inconsistent ideas. If you do not believe me, read this http://koantum.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-there-quantum-mechanical-world.html" (Professor of the Foundations and Philosophy of the Natural Sciences at the Institute for History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University).

How can anyone who lacks familiarity with a somewhat representative part of this discussion offer "solutions" to those issues?

 

[reilly]

koantum -- Both you and Prof. Dieks use an old propaganda technique, sometimes called the strawman attack. Without any apparent supporting empirical evidence, you both claim that many physicists are "blissfully ignorant''; basically you both say much of the physics community is mired in bad thinking, is blessed with an erroneous conceptual background. (I've been called many things in my life, but until your suggestion, only my ex-wife has called me ignorant -- she does not like me much, I'm afraid.) If that is indeed the case, then prove it -- I'm a market and survey research professional, and would happy to evaluate your sampling scheme and survey instruments or interview protocols. Seems to me you are both saying that much of the physics community doesn't have a clue about what they are doing. I always wonder what "Divine Right of Kings" and scholastics folks thought about that horrible, inconsistent, heretical stuff propagated by Galileo, Newton -- they had the temerity to build a new world view, with considerable emphasis on empiricism.

But, being a confirmed reductionist and empiricist, I note that mainstream physics has had success after success, while at the same time those outside the mainstream -- or at the periphery -- have accomplished very little -- with the exception of Bell and the explorations of his work.

Where and how are physicists paying a price for their naive views?

Prof. Dieks seems to forget that the human mind functions with "classical " ideas and concepts -- what else can it do, with brains being wired as they are? Of course, that's the rub -- nature and our conceptual and perceptual apparatus don't entirely get along, but given time, history suggests to me that our current "paradigm" will change, and in 100 years or so, in no small measure due to the pragmatic success of QM, the standard "pragmatic Born, knowledge interpretation" will seem quite natural. History is full of such intellectual conceptual shifts -- in science, politics, art, music, and so on. Further, in my opinion, by that time neuroscientists will understand the human perceptual system well enough to have a good handle on measurements.

Just for the record, I have, in fact read a fair amount of the rump approach to QM, all of which I find less than convincing, and some I find to be wonderfully fanciful and mystical-- cf. David Deutsch and his shadow photons. I'm also somewhat familiar with the fancy mathematical approach to QM -- Mackey(my undergraduate advisor for the year I was a math major), Gleason, and my college roommate, Marc Rieffel -- they are playing a different ballgame than most physicists, but their work is, obviously, of great value.

And, in the past, I was a serious student of neuroscience, having been drawn in by my interest in neural networks -- used backprop in marketing studies with mixed success. Just as my wife is a minimalist artist, I'm a minimalist in science. And, I feel quite free to accept or reject ideas, concepts and theories according to my personal notions, which, after 68 years of life, have been, I hope, honed to a reasonable "T."

The only stuff I've read and studied about consciousness, which makes any sense to me, is hard core empirical work -- or about notions based on empirical work -- see, for example Chapter XI in Dr. Gazzaniga's The Cognitive Neurosciences, with eight papers on the subject of consciousness -- even includes work by Patricia Churchland, a philosopher. (My copy of this huge book-- 1500 pages, of which I've read about half -- is the first edition, and, I understand there is now a more up-to-date edition.) I've read the two Steves, Kosslyn and Pinker, with whom I had the good fortune to discuss some of these neuro-topics -- they were consultants to a consulting firm I helped start back in the late 1970s. (We were doing a study to try to develop an "alphabet" for visual presentations, see Visual Cognition edited by Pinker in 1986.) Pinker, in particular, is a brilliant writer, and a brilliant guy, and his books, The Langauge Instinct, and How the Mind Works are, at least in my view, challenging, solidly argued, empirically based, and highly informative. I like to think that I know a small something about minds and consciousness. I even think I might have an iota of knowledge about QM that could not be called "blissful ignorance."

And, re Dieks, where is it written that physics is something other than a highly empirical science?

Dieks writes:
What does it really mean, for example, to say that a quantum object does not possesses properties of its, own but... only acquires properties in a measurement context?...

The whole point of applied probability theory (as in sales forecasting, survey research,...), and of the knowledge interpretation of QM is to avoid such ridiculous (I apologize for using a loaded word, something I try to avoid, but when in Rome..) notions about properties existing only when measured -- seems to me that such an idea only could make sense unless and when we as physicists are backed into a corner from which we cannot escape due to the press of empirical evidence. The plain fact is simply that until you measure, you don't know. What's so hard to accept here? (Remember that the idea of reality is, among other things, just plain convenient, as is the notion of existence. I won't go so far as to say they are convenient fictions, but ...And, of course, over the years these concepts have changed -- we would have a difficult time having a conversation with, say, a 13th century cleric, whose ontology, if I might use a word that I don't fully understand, would be quite alien to us, and vice versa.

Prof. Dieks' article is one man's opinion -- he gives no supporting evidence for dissing the physics community's intellectual shortcomings-- and I could not disagree more with his exposition.

Regards,
Reilly

 

[DrChinese]

koantum: On your site, you talk about a "crisis in physics" and I don't think most would agree with your assessment. Who is to say what is in fact the optimal path to knowledge? Each takes their own path, and each asks his own questions. At some level, any physicist is curious but may express it in different ways.

reilly: I got a little confused about your comments about "properties existing only when measured ". Are you saying that your belief is such quantum properties ARE well-defined even if not measured? Or are you making no statement at all about that? (I am just trying to clarify your position a bit in my own mind.)

 

[koantum]

koantum: On your site, you talk about a "crisis in physics" and I don't think most would agree with your assessment.

Not on http://thisquantumworld.com" " by Lee Smolin (published in Update, the official magazine for Members of the New York Academy of Sciences, Jan/Feb 2006). Given the name and fame of the author, I think it deserves broad exposure.

 

[koantum]

koantum -- Both you and Prof. Dieks use an old propaganda technique, sometimes called the strawman attack. Without any apparent supporting empirical evidence, you both claim that many physicists are "blissfully ignorant''; basically you both say much of the physics community is mired in bad thinking, is blessed with an erroneous conceptual background.

reilly—You evidently use the same technique. I claimed (and continue to do so, because by reading, correspondence, and conversation I have collected a mass of evidence to this effect) that "the vast majority of physicists substitutes its blissful ignorance of these deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics with a naïve semiclassical hotchpotch of mutually inconsistent ideas." You attribute to me the claim that many physicists are "blissfully ignorant''—period. This isn't quite the same, is it?

Both Dieks and myself are much more generous than you paint us. We both agree that the theoretical and/or experimental expertise of most contemporary physicists is nothing short of awe-inspiring. (I say "theoretical" rather than "mathematical" because mathematicians might disagree, given the nonchalance with which mathematically ill-defined expressions are used—with great success—by theoretical physicists. In this context I recommend "http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603155" " by Fredenhagen, Rehren, and Seiler, to appear in: An Assessment of Current Paradigms in the Physics of Fundamental Phenomena, Springer, 2006.) The necessity to acquire this expertise leaves no time for deep philosophical reflection. Nobody therefore blames physicists for their philosophical naivety.

Again, nobody doubts that images can be of considerable help in dealing with mathematical concepts or in manipulating complicated expressions, e.g., Feynman diagrams. As far as the theoretical predictions (for comparison with experimental data) are concerned, it doesn’t even hurt if you believe something as philosophically naïve and absurd as Zee's claim that Feynman diagrams "are literally pictures of what happened." But if at the end of the day you base your worldview on the mental images that accompany your theoretical activities, then ... (well, the less said the better).

Seems to me you are both saying that much of the physics community doesn't have a clue about what they are doing.

This is pure polemic. Nobody questions their theoretical and/or experimental expertise. But consider this: In QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Feynman tells a general audience that "by explaining quantum electrodynamics to you in terms of what we are really doing [his emphasis], I hope you will be able to understand it better than do some of the students." Imagine! One of the greatest physicists of the past century believes that it is possible, in only four lectures, to make a lay audience understand quantum electrodynamics better than do some of the physics students. And we all know that this genius, who perhaps understood quantum mechanics better than anyone, thought it "safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." You get my drift? I am saying that there are many different ways of understanding. Please don’t mix them up, at least not deliberately.

But, being a confirmed reductionist

This statement alone is sufficient to demonstrate your philosophical naivety. If you applied the same scientific standards in the ideological domain, you ought to keep an open mind. The success of contemporary physics, however great and astonishing, is far from being a proof of the correctness of reductionism. In Newtonian mechanics the 3 body problem was insoluble. With general relativity the 2 and 1 body problems became insoluble. In quantum field theory the 0 body (vacuum) problem is insoluble. Nothing is already too much. It is clear therefore that even for a protein molecule it is impossible (i) to predict with sufficient accuracy and (ii) to measure with sufficient accuracy so as to be in a position to check whether its behavior is governed strictly by physical laws.

Besides, there are clear indications that subjective consciousness eludes reductionism. It is much like the little discrepancy that existed between classical theory and observations at the beginning of the 20th century. Some quotes:

"Sometimes I really regret that I did not live in those times when there was still so much that was new; to be sure enough much is yet unknown, but I do not think that it will be possible to discover anything easily nowadays that would lead us to revise our entire outlook as radically as was possible in the days when telescopes and microscopes were still new.—Heinrich Hertz as a physics student, ca. 1875

The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.—Albert. A. Michelson, speech at the dedication of Ryerson Physics Lab, University of Chicago. 1894

There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement"—Lord Kelvin, 1900
​

the human mind functions with "classical " ideas and concepts -- what else can it do, with brains being wired as they are? Of course, that's the rub -- nature and our conceptual and perceptual apparatus don't entirely get along, but given time, history suggests to me that our current "paradigm" will change, and in 100 years or so, in no small measure due to the pragmatic success of QM, the standard "pragmatic Born, knowledge interpretation" will seem quite natural.

I couldn't agree more with what you're saying here, except I would credit Bohr before Born, and I believe that one can go further. Probabilities are fundamental but not necessarily subjective. The central role played by probabilities in the fundamental theoretical framework of physics argues that quantum-mechanical probabilities are objective and, as such, are the quantitative expression of an objective fuzziness. Several important ontological conclusions can be drawn from this, and these (I believe) will be common knowledge by the end of the 21st century.

Here is a part of the abstract of http://cogprints.org/4480/" :

The problem of making sense of quantum mechanics (QM) is as much a psychological problem as it is a physical one. There is a conflict between the spatiotemporal structure of the quantum world (which is discussed in some detail) and the way in which the (visual aspect of) the phenomenal world is constructed by our minds (which is also discussed in some detail). Unlike the quantum world, the phenomenal world conforms to the cookie cutter paradigm (CCP)---the idea that the synchronic multiplicity of the world rests on surfaces that carve up space much as cookie cutters carve up rolled-out pastry. The attempt to model the physical world in conformity with the CCP gives rise to pseudoproblems (including most versions of the notorious measurement problem) that foil our attempts to understand the quantum world. The genuine problems arising from the fact that the fundamental theoretical framework of contemporary physics is an algorithm for calculating the probabilities of possible measurement outcomes on the basis of actual measurement outcomes, are solved not by adding physically unwarranted assumptions to the quantum formalism but by rejecting unwarranted assumptions that are all but universally made.​

Further, in my opinion, by that time neuroscientists will understand the human perceptual system well enough to have a good handle on measurements.

I beg to differ. The human perceptual system has nothing to do with the measurement problem.

Just for the record, I have, in fact read a fair amount of the rump approach to QM, all of which I find less than convincing, and some I find to be wonderfully fanciful and mystical-- cf. David Deutsch and his shadow photons. I'm also somewhat familiar with the fancy mathematical approach to QM -- Mackey(my undergraduate advisor for the year I was a math major), Gleason, and my college roommate, Marc Rieffel -- they are playing a different ballgame than most physicists, but their work is, obviously, of great value.

Complete agreement.

Just as my wife is a minimalist artist, I'm a minimalist in science.

Off the record, my wife too is an artist, though I wouldn’t call her minimalist. (You can check that out http://vishwajyoti.com" .) The way I see it, minimalism is beneficial to science, but there is much that is beyond the reach of science, and when it comes to a world view, I demand from it more than science can achieve.

I feel quite free to accept or reject ideas, concepts and theories according to my personal notions, which, after 68 years of life, have been, I hope, honed to a reasonable "T."

I believe that everybody must have this freedom. But maybe, just maybe, you are in for a surprise, just like the physicists quoted above.

re Dieks, where is it written that physics is something other than a highly empirical science?

Nowhere. But this also means that it makes no sense to base a comprehensive world view on physics alone.

The whole point of applied probability theory (as in sales forecasting, survey research,...), and of the knowledge interpretation of QUANTUM MECHANICS...

As Mermin (another crank in your opinion?) wrote: "In a non-deterministic world, probability has nothing to do with incomplete knowledge. Quantum mechanics is the first example in human experience where probabilities play an essential role even when there is nothing to be ignorant about." So please don’t give me that $%*# about sales forecasting and survey research.

... is to avoid such ridiculous... notions about properties existing only when measured—seems to me that such an idea only could make sense unless and when we as physicists are backed into a corner from which we cannot escape due to the press of empirical evidence. The plain fact is simply that until you measure, you don't know.

Is this statement intended to mislead, or are you really ignorant of the many "no-go theorems" that leave no room for any other conclusion than that (to paraphrase a famous dictum by Wheeler, no run-of-the-mill physicist either) no property or value is possessed unless it is measured (that is, unless there is an actual event or state of affairs from which it can be inferred). The average physicists' naïve and internally inconsistent world view is precisely their defense against this "ridiculous" conclusion—as ridiculous, I presume, as the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

 

[ZapperZ]

reilly—You evidently use the same technique. I claimed (and continue to do so, because by reading, correspondence, and conversation I have collected a mass of evidence to this effect) that "the vast majority of physicists substitutes its blissful ignorance of these deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics with a naïve semiclassical hotchpotch of mutually inconsistent ideas." You attribute to me the claim that many physicists are "blissfully ignorant''—period. This isn't quite the same, is it?

And you don't think there is a difference between scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence? Which one do you think that you have to be able to deduce what the "vast majority" does?

And no, I don't intend to be dragged into this "philosophical discussion". My question is with your methodology to be able to draw that kind of conclusion with such conviction.

Zz.

 

[koantum]

And you don't think there is a difference between scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence?

Anecdotal? Over 30 years of searching all but in vain for philosophically sound thinking in the physics literature.

As to scientific evidence, that doesn’t go beyond correlations between counter clicks.

If there were any shift in our own world-view, much of what we call 'evidence' would decamp from the old paradigm to the new in a most disloyal manner.

Charles Whitehead in the December 2004 issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies.​

And no, I don't intend to be dragged into this "philosophical discussion".

Don't.

 

[ZapperZ]

Anecdotal? Over 30 years of searching all but in vain for philosophically sound thinking in the physics literature.

You, of all people, should know the difference between "length of time" and "valid evidence". One doesn't automatically implies the other. You may have LOOKED at it or thought about it long enough, but your claim about people in the physics profession cannot simply be done within the confined of your 4 walls.

I asked about your METHODOLOGY in arriving at your accusation of my profession. So far, all I can deduce is that you have not done a systematic study nor survey. ALL you have done is based it on anecdotal evidence. Have you done a wide enough survey of practicing physicists and not just people who dabbled in philosophical implications of physics?

It is one thing to give an opinion on an issue. It is another to make a statement about a group of people without ample sampling of that group of people. All I asked is, where is this sampling done according to a standard statistically acceptable survey?

As to scientific evidence, that doesn’t go beyond counter clicks and the like.

If there were any shift in our own world-view, much of what we call 'evidence' would decamp from the old paradigm to the new in a most disloyal manner.

Charles Whitehead in the December 2004 issue of Journal of Consciousness Studies.​

Sorry, I'm not impressed by this, because you are in the wrong forum. If you wish, I can move this off to the Mind and Brain forum, or even the Philosophy forum. But don't try that here.

Zz.

 

[koantum]

ZapperZ—I am not accusing your profession. I respect your work as experimentalist as I respect the work of theoretical physicists. If I claim that the vast majority of musicians have no professional knowledge of biology, is that an accusation? But you don't need that kind of survey to establish the average practicing physicist's ignorance (blissful or otherwise) of the deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics. Did you even ask what these issues are? What I claim most physicists are ignorant about? I met a sufficiently fair sampling at conferences to be confident enough about my conclusions. Most physicists know zilch about what philosophers of science are discussing, and they don’t care, and they don’t need to care. The only thing that gets me is their floating of far-reaching ontologies (which of course capture the attention of the popular press) when all they have is an algorithm for calculating correlations between counter clicks.

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ—I am not accusing your profession. I respect your work as experimentalist as I respect the work of theoretical physicists. If I claim that the vast majority of musicians have no professional knowledge of biology, is that an accusation? But you don't need that kind of survey to establish the average practicing physicist's ignorance (blissful or otherwise) of the deep issues in the philosophy of modern physics. Did you even ask what these issues are? What I claim most physicists are ignorant about? I met a sufficiently fair sampling at conferences to be confident enough about my conclusions. Most physicists know zilch about what philosophers of science are discussing, and they don’t care, and they don’t need to care. The only thing that gets me is their floating of far-reaching ontologies (which of course capture the attention of the popular press) when all they have is an algorithm for calculating correlations between counter clicks.

And again, you have not shown here where you have made an accurate enough sampling to arrive at your conclusion.

You also appear to contradicting yourself. On one hand, you said that us physicists are either ignorant of the "deep issues of philosphy of modern physics" or simply don't care about them. But on the other hand, we seem to also be "floating of far-reaching ontologies". Who is doing this if we, as a group, don't care? Are you able to conclude that since a few physicists dabbled in such thing, that the rest of us are equally "floating" along, while we continue to be ignorant of what it is?

This issue does not belong in the physics section. I strongly suggest, before I have to do surgery on this thread, that the discussion goes to the Philosophy forum so that the rest of us physicists can continue with our ignorance of it.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

Some people make a living on the "Philosophy of Modern Physics". Others make a living on the Philosophy of "Philosophy of Modern Physics". Are all physicists "professional" philosophers at heart? What set or sub-set does thinking about a problem fit into? Has any professional philosopher made a "legitimate" contribution to the area of Physics? Can anyone categorize "a Physicist" as "a Philosopher"? Does the "degree" of training limit the person's ability to contribute (or condemn)?


How does the 'idea' of a 'good idea' fall into place especially when/if/and/etc. has validity (or no validity)?


We are all in different sub-sets; finding the 'right' sub-set to get involved in and forming a valid personal opinion is the key.




----wasn't this specific thread about the problems relating to QM?

 

[DrChinese]

Not on http://thisquantumworld.com" " by Lee Smolin (published in Update, the official magazine for Members of the New York Academy of Sciences, Jan/Feb 2006). Given the name and fame of the author, I think it deserves broad exposure.

My mistake, I see that I got his position mixed up with yours. Of course, Smolin is well respected but I would not agree with his characterization of fundamental physics as being in crisis. Who can say how long it should take until the next great theoretical discovery? (Besides, maybe there won't be any more... )

 

[koantum]

Who can say how long it should take until the next great theoretical discovery? (Besides, maybe there won't be any more... )

I have the sneaking feeling that you may be right. The next paradigm shift may even take us beyond science altogether. But I most stop here, ZapperZ has already threatened to throw me into the philosophy trash can.

 

[koantum]

You appear to contradicting yourself. On one hand, you said that us physicists are either ignorant of the "deep issues of philosphy of modern physics" or simply don't care about them. But on the other hand, we seem to also be "floating of far-reaching ontologies".

The contradiction (or paradox) is in the physics community itself. Quoting from the paper by Dennis Dieks:

The fact that interpretational problems do not receive much serious professional attention... seems related to the very nature of empirical science, in which empirical success is the ultimate goal and interpretation has at least "officially" the status of handmaiden. The paradox is that unofficially... physicists have quite outspoken opinions about the general ideas of most interpretations.​

 

[reilly]

reilly: I got a little confused about your comments about "properties existing only when measured ". Are you saying that your belief is such quantum properties ARE well-defined even if not measured? Or are you making no statement at all about that? (I am just trying to clarify your position a bit in my own mind.)

Part of the problem I have with some of the QT interpretation discussions, is that I really don't understand the notion of existence, other than at an intuitive level. Similarly, what exactly is reality?

Hence my personal take that "you don't know until you measure" How could I ever figure out whether the electrons in an EPR experiement are in a single state -- say the left electron is spin down -- while in transit to their measurements without measurements? I guess I'm making no statement at all -- I'm perfectly agnostic on the matter. What better example of blissful ignorance could there be?

Regards,
Reilly

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I've got a few things to do over the next few days, so I'll 1. thank lot's of people for making this a "happening thing," and 2. say that, in my view consciousness has nothing at all to do with QM-- other than the obvious matters of matter and the various perceptual neural-transducers. Along with many neuroscientists, Sir Francis Crick in particular, it's my view that consciousness is simply the cumulative effect of neural activity.

Until recently, notions of free will., consciousness and "brain-mind" duality were predominantly considered by philosophers -- their's was really the only game in town. My how things have changed -- science has increasingly taken over from philosophy, as it must, and as it did during Newton's time. Seems to me that philosophers are becoming less and less relevant and much less important than even 15 years ago in the area of mental phenomena -- the 19th century's approach to understanding nature is losing ground to the realities of the late 20th century.


To be continued.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

Sorry I hadn't noticed Reily had replied so this reply will probably seem out of joint with the previous posts.

Philosophy guides science and science guides philosophy.

I think it's fairly obvious there isn't a mystical quality to consciousness even if we are so primitive in understanding the way the human mind works; it's a bit of a stretch to invoke ideas such as a soul or collective consciousness or anything non material, to that extent the notion that it is merely a cumulative effect of neural activity is fairly obvious. The problem is, is it is of course wonderfully complicated, how does a thin strand of interconnected "wires" in a mass of interconnected cells possibly visualise an apple? What about a neuron or series of neurons stores that image, is there a feedback loop between consciousness and subconscience, how would inspirational thought work, how does intuition function, what about an electrical impulse through 700 cells causes us to feel joy, why is memory so analagous, what makes us self aware. Yes all this can be broken down into neurons, but all this can't be broken down into biology.

As to reillys points about Einstein, thanks for that by the way, it wasn't clear but I actually meant to use Einstein as a way of highlighting that the well educated can succesfully question the mainstream, String theory, preposterous imaginary maths or reality? Black body radiation, Heim Theory, Aether theories, all these non mainstream ideas could yield some fruit from well educated scientists. To dismiss those working out of kilter with science to me is a little short sighted. Who is to say what notions will have merit, suppose we found that the vacuum wasn't that at all and that it was indeed a fabric of space, no evidence of course, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility(BTW I'm happy with Einsteins notions, I'm just making a point )