Is the Perception of Objects Relative to Our Senses?

[JoeDawg]

Bohmian mechanics says otherwise. It suggests that there may be both a classical particle and a holographic pilot wave.

People can interpret it anyway they like. The double slit experiment shows us what occurs. And QM describes it and predicts for it. The only paradox is in how we represent it. Your indignation at being told you are wrong doesn't interest me.

 

[pervect]

Bohmian mechanics says otherwise. It suggests that there may be both a classical particle and a holographic pilot wave.

Personally, I don't believe in any of this useless metaphysical garbage.

What is the "useless metaphysical garbage" you are talking about here?

I get the impression that this ("useless metaphysical garbage") includes Bohmian mechanics as a subset, but it's not a very clear remark, so it's hard to be sure what you meant.

If we take a broad interpretation of "useless metaphysical garbage", one wonders why you are in a philosophy forum at all. Philosophy is basically about those ideas that can't be tested scientifically.

What interpretation (if any) of quantum mechanics are you suggesting? Are you just trying to say that there are multiple interpretations of QM still "active" in the scientific community, are you actively pushing for the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, or are you coming from some other position?

 

[wuliheron]

What is the "useless metaphysical garbage" you are talking about here?

I get the impression that this ("useless metaphysical garbage") includes Bohmian mechanics as a subset, but it's not a very clear remark, so it's hard to be sure what you meant.

If we take a broad interpretation of "useless metaphysical garbage", one wonders why you are in a philosophy forum at all. Philosophy is basically about those ideas that can't be tested scientifically.

What interpretation (if any) of quantum mechanics are you suggesting? Are you just trying to say that there are multiple interpretations of QM still "active" in the scientific community, are you actively pushing for the "shut up and calculate" interpretation, or are you coming from some other position?

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven. In my opinion, one of the most important steps towards wisdom and scientific progress is the acceptance of our ignorance. It was only when people accepted the idea that the world might not be the center of the universe, that they might be ignorant about our place in the universe, only then could astronomy make progress.

I do not strictly advocate the "shut up and calculate" view, I believe that it is only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made. However, I definitely disagree with the idea that the modern standard theory supports any particular metaphysical view above all others. I also disagree with the idea that in general scientific theories prove or disprove any particular metaphysics at all.

When it comes to science I'm a pragmatist, theories are just that, theories. They are either immediately useful or they are not and if the history of scientific theories tells us anything it is that being attached to specific metaphysical views has actually hindered the progress of the sciences. Newtonian mechanics died a slow, painful death with very famous physicists making fools of themselves claiming that the end of physics was in sight at last. Acceptance of our observations, not any particular metaphysics, is the engine that drives the sciences.

 

[Pythagorean]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven. In my opinion, one of the most important steps towards wisdom and scientific progress is the acceptance of our ignorance. It was only when people accepted the idea that the world might not be the center of the universe, that they might be ignorant about our place in the universe, only then could astronomy make progress.

philosophy can be broken into the root words "to love" and "wisdom" but it doesn't particularly mean that the modern school of philosophy follows this. The origin of that name dates back to when philosophers were scientists.

Nowadays, philosophy can be used loosely for something as menial as a method of action, or it can be used to explain and discuss endlessly about impractical, intangible, and unfalsifiable topics.

I do not strictly advocate the "shut up and calculate" view, I believe that it is only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made. However, I definitely disagree with the idea that the modern standard theory supports any particular metaphysical view above all others. I also disagree with the idea that in general scientific theories prove or disprove any particular metaphysics at all.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that it's "only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made" (if by alternative you mean unconventional). It's true that unconventional approaches are a healthy input to progress, but the conventional system works well (and more consistently) and often keeps the unconventional "in check"

Standard theory doesn't support any metaphysical views. Standard theory is a description of physical events, how they occur, what precedes them, and what their effects are. Metaphysical views seem to get constructed by philosophers who half understand science and make cute conclusions about the human experience based on phenomena in science. It's quite the leap.

When it comes to science I'm a pragmatist, theories are just that, theories. They are either immediately useful or they are not and if the history of scientific theories tells us anything it is that being attached to specific metaphysical views has actually hindered the progress of the sciences. Newtonian mechanics died a slow, painful death with very famous physicists making fools of themselves claiming that the end of physics was in sight at last. Acceptance of our observations, not any particular metaphysics, is the engine that drives the sciences.

Again, I'd have to disagree. Some theories aren't immediately useful, some have been developing for centuries (and continue to develop), but more importantly, what does this have to do with your main point?

Newton's mechanics aren't dead. They're still very useful and a necessary basis for learn modern physics. I've studies physics as an undergrad for three years and it's all been classical mechanics so far. I star learning quantum physics this semester.

 

[JoeDawg]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven.

If you think wisdom is limited to empirical knowledge then you really don't understand very much about philosophy.

Empirical observation is one method of gaining wisdom, abstract reasoning, via logic, whether it is done using natural language, or mathematics, is another.

We use empirical observation in science to confirm or refute hypotheses, but we develop our hypotheses with completely non-empirical reasoning. Without philosophy, science is just organized data. Thats not wisdom, by any standard definition.

Wisdom may indeed be knowledge of what you don't know, but its not about wallowing in it.

 

[wuliheron]

If you think wisdom is limited to empirical knowledge then you really don't understand very much about philosophy.

Empirical observation is one method of gaining wisdom, abstract reasoning, via logic, whether it is done using natural language, or mathematics, is another.

We use empirical observation in science to confirm or refute hypotheses, but we develop our hypotheses with completely non-empirical reasoning. Without philosophy, science is just organized data. Thats not wisdom, by any standard definition.

Wisdom may indeed be knowledge of what you don't know, but its not about wallowing in it.

No, I do not think wisdom is limited to empirical knowledge or science. I merely said philosophy is the love of wisdom, and that this is not limited to metaphysics or those things which cannot be proven scientifically. For that matter, it does not exclude scientific facts either.

philosophy can be broken into the root words "to love" and "wisdom" but it doesn't particularly mean that the modern school of philosophy follows this. The origin of that name dates back to when philosophers were scientists.

Nowadays, philosophy can be used loosely for something as menial as a method of action, or it can be used to explain and discuss endlessly about impractical, intangible, and unfalsifiable topics.

Our beliefs and feelings can fall into these categories of impractical, intangible, and unfalsifiable. Wisdom comes from within, not from without. It is not merely a collection of facts, but a kind of awareness that comes from acceptance.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that it's "only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made" (if by alternative you mean unconventional). It's true that unconventional approaches are a healthy input to progress, but the conventional system works well (and more consistently) and often keeps the unconventional "in check"

Standard theory doesn't support any metaphysical views. Standard theory is a description of physical events, how they occur, what precedes them, and what their effects are. Metaphysical views seem to get constructed by philosophers who half understand science and make cute conclusions about the human experience based on phenomena in science. It's quite the leap.

LOL. Einstein, Heisenberg, and other great physicists were famous for their metaphysical ramblings. In addition, all I meant by alternative was something different from the accepted theory of the day. Whether that be a conventional or unconventional approach to the subject.

Again, I'd have to disagree. Some theories aren't immediately useful, some have been developing for centuries (and continue to develop), but more importantly, what does this have to do with your main point?

Newton's mechanics aren't dead. They're still very useful and a necessary basis for learn modern physics. I've studies physics as an undergrad for three years and it's all been classical mechanics so far. I star learning quantum physics this semester.

Being a pragmatist I know full well that some theories are not immediately useful. However, in such cases I put them on the back burner as interesting curiosities whenever I focus on more immediately useful things.

My point was that it was people's attachment to the underlying metaphysics of Newtonian mechanics that hindered the development of quantum mechanics. It's understandable really, people want and expect things to make sense. However, science is not in the business of making sense of things. Science is in the business of collecting facts and putting them to use.

 

[Pythagorean]

LOL. Einstein, Heisenberg, and other great physicists were famous for their metaphysical ramblings. In addition, all I meant by alternative was something different from the accepted theory of the day. Whether that be a conventional or unconventional approach to the subject.

That's not the point. Their scientific work doesn't involve metaphysics, and that's what we're talking about: the idea of science, not the scientists themselves. I actually enjoy Einstein's metaphysical views, but they're not science... they're the 'wisdom' you speak of. (I agree with your definition of wisdom actually, and wisdom is useful in science, but it's not science)

Being a pragmatist I know full well that some theories are not immediately useful. However, in such cases I put them on the back burner as interesting curiosities whenever I focus on more immediately useful things.

My point was that it was people's attachment to the underlying metaphysics of Newtonian mechanics that hindered the development of quantum mechanics. It's understandable really, people want and expect things to make sense. However, science is not in the business of making sense of things. Science is in the business of collecting facts and putting them to use.

yeah, it took a while to accept quantum, but you can't deny something that's "true".

I would think Science is in the business of collecting facts and making predictions. Engineers, salesmen, politicians, and con-artists put them to "use". Engineers are the most likely to retain respect for the original idea, whereas the rest use them as a bit of 'informative' in their 'persuasive'.

Of course, the intelligent laymen takes advantage of science too, but I was talking professionally.

 

[wuliheron]

That's not the point. Their scientific work doesn't involve metaphysics, and that's what we're talking about: the idea of science, not the scientists themselves. I actually enjoy Einstein's metaphysical views, but they're not science... they're the 'wisdom' you speak of. (I agree with your definition of wisdom actually, and wisdom is useful in science, but it's not science)

You wrote, "Metaphysical views seem to get constructed by philosophers who half understand science and make cute conclusions about the human experience..." Obviously this is not always true.

yeah, it took a while to accept quantum, but you can't deny something that's "true".

I would think Science is in the business of collecting facts and making predictions. Engineers, salesmen, politicians, and con-artists put them to "use". Engineers are the most likely to retain respect for the original idea, whereas the rest use them as a bit of 'informative' in their 'persuasive'.

Of course, the intelligent laymen takes advantage of science too, but I was talking professionally.

Science is interested in the essentially new, while engineering is involved in applying the already known. Thus a political scientist might be interested in finding new ways to apply things, while a social engineer would be interested in how to apply what scientists have already discovered.

 

[pervect]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom, not metaphysics or those things that cannot be scientifically proven.

I don't think I agree. Philosophy can involve things other than metaphysics, for example, looking it up in the current wikipedia I find:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).

With the possible exception of logic (but can you use logic to prove logic?) none of the elements of philosophy are testable - can you prove that a given action was ethical or not ethical, for instance? I don't think so - but I suppose someone, somewhere, could and would be willing to argue about this at great length :-(.

In my opinion, one of the most important steps towards wisdom and scientific progress is the acceptance of our ignorance. It was only when people accepted the idea that the world might not be the center of the universe, that they might be ignorant about our place in the universe, only then could astronomy make progress.

I do not strictly advocate the "shut up and calculate" view, I believe that it is only by trying alternative approaches that progress can be made. However, I definitely disagree with the idea that the modern standard theory supports any particular metaphysical view above all others. I also disagree with the idea that in general scientific theories prove or disprove any particular metaphysics at all.

I generally agree here. While some metaphysical views are clearly wrong because they are inconsistent, it's generally impossible to prove or disprove any given metaphysical view by experiment. This is what I meant when I said that philsophical questions were not testable.

Newtonian mechanics died a slow, painful death with very famous physicists making fools of themselves claiming that the end of physics was in sight at last.

I personally think this is a bit over-dramatic. Some examples may or may not help, but we probably don't want to hijack the thread in this direction anyway.

 

[wuliheron]

I don't think I agree. Philosophy can involve things other than metaphysics, for example, looking it up in the current wikipedia I find:

With the possible exception of logic (but can you use logic to prove logic?) none of the elements of philosophy are testable - can you prove that a given action was ethical or not ethical, for instance? I don't think so - but I suppose someone, somewhere, could and would be willing to argue about this at great length :-(.

The field of philosophy includes metaphysics, but that does not mean every philosopher values metaphysics.

In addition, if you had bothered to read the entire article it states quite clearly that a number of sciences including psychology and linguistics used to be considered purely philosophical pursuits. The minute a purely philosophical pursuit becomes scientifically proven it no longer is a purely philosophical pursuit.

FYI logic is a tool of philosophy, not a philosophy in and of itself.

I generally agree here. While some metaphysical views are clearly wrong because they are inconsistent, it's generally impossible to prove or disprove any given metaphysical view by experiment. This is what I meant when I said that philosophical questions were not testable.

Whether a particular metaphysics is consistent or not does not constitute proof that it is wrong. No one has ever proven that life has to make sense. About the best we can say is that it apparently does make a great deal of sense when we look at it rationally, but then, how could it look otherwise?

 

[JoeDawg]

... a number of sciences including psychology and linguistics used to be considered purely philosophical pursuits.

All forms of inquiry used to be considered philosophy and many people still consider scientific method merely an extension or tool of philosophy.

FYI logic is a tool of philosophy, not a philosophy in and of itself.

FYI, Actually, one can choose to look at the world through logic, or not... in this way, it very much is a philosophy.

Religion, for instance, relies on revealed truth, and sometimes embraces logical contradictions, which obviously doesn't demand or even require a logical structure, merely belief. And it is still considered wisdom.

I think you are talking outside your expertise.

 

[wuliheron]

All forms of inquiry used to be considered philosophy and many people still consider scientific method merely an extension or tool of philosophy.

Actually, the Chinese have traditionally not distinguished between philosophy and religion, however, westerners do make this distinction. In addition, the vast majority of philosophers do consider the scientific method to be a philosophical tool. In fact, philosophy forms the foundations of all practices, hence, everything we do is ultimately an expression of our philosophy. Nonetheless, most people prefer to make distinctions for the sake of practicality if nothing else.

FYI, Actually, one can choose to look at the world through logic, or not... in this way, it very much is a philosophy.

Religion, for instance, relies on revealed truth, and sometimes embraces logical contradictions, which obviously doesn't demand or even require a logical structure, merely belief. And it is still considered wisdom.

I think you are talking outside your expertise.

Philosophy is not looking at the world through logic, philosophy is the reason you choose to look at the world through logic.

 

[JoeDawg]

Actually, the Chinese have traditionally not distinguished between philosophy and religion,

If you have studied the history of philosophy you know that the 'western' philosophical tradition, which began with the pre-socratics, dealt very much with religion. Philosophers love arguing about god. Its not a Chinese thing.

In addition, the vast majority of philosophers do consider the scientific method to be a philosophical tool.

Many scientists don't. They see science as separate.

In fact, philosophy forms the foundations of all practices, hence, everything we do is ultimately an expression of our philosophy.

If you say so.

Philosophy is not looking at the world through logic, philosophy is the reason you choose to look at the world through logic.

Or choose NOT to look at the world through logic. Many philosophies embrace irrational elements, and some specifically because they are irrational, the Tao, Kierkegaard...etc..

 

[wuliheron]

If you have studied the history of philosophy you know that the 'western' philosophical tradition, which began with the pre-socratics, dealt very much with religion. Philosophers love arguing about god. Its not a Chinese thing.

This is not true in Taoism, for example. Part of the Taoist tradition is to never argue about anything.

In addition, the modern western philosophical tradition owes its origins to the ancient Greek philosophers who invented metaphysics as a covert way of criticizing the increasingly bizarre stories of their religion. Overt criticism of their religion was punishable by death.

 

[JoeDawg]

This is not true in Taoism, for example. Part of the Taoist tradition is to never argue about anything.

Pity you're not a taoist.

You're wasting my time.

 

[wuliheron]

Pity you're not a taoist.

You're wasting my time.

For only $9.95 you too can know the secrets of the universe!


These include:

1) How to encourage others to argue!

2) How to make other people waste their time!

Send cash or money order to:

Lao_Tzu@2500bc.net