Undergrad QM & Ontology: Why Should We Stay Away?

  • Thread starter Thread starter entropy1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ontology Qm
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the tension between quantum mechanics (QM) and ontology, with participants questioning why physicists often avoid ontological discussions. While some argue that ontology can enrich understanding, others point out that it complicates physics by introducing unfalsifiable interpretations, leading to fragmentation among physicists. The debate references Karl Popper's criteria for scientific validity, suggesting that many ontological propositions fall outside this boundary. Additionally, various philosophical frameworks, such as materialistic and idealistic monism, are mentioned as potential interpretations of quantum phenomena, highlighting the complexity of integrating ontology with QM. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a broader philosophical inquiry into the nature of reality and existence within the realm of physics.
  • #61
physika said:
Entities : example; Electrons (be a wave, a particle...)
Facts: Properties (attributes, qualities, features, characteristics...)

facts are secondary, I.E. derived.
? One cannot even define entities without stating their defining properties, i.e., some facts about them.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
A. Neumaier said:
? One cannot even define entities without stating their defining properties, i.e., some facts about them.
.
What do you say ? that if you don't define it, it doesn't exist?
without definition, there is no existence ??

.
 
  • #63
physika said:
.
What do you say ? that if you don't define it, it doesn't exist?
without definition, there is no existence ??

.
Without a sufficiently precise definition of a concept X it is undetermined what the statement that X exists means.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dextercioby and mattt
  • #64
A. Neumaier said:
Without a sufficiently precise definition of a concept X it is undetermined what the statement that X exists means.
.
Objects (thing, entity) exist whether or not has a definition. To imagine they don't exist before we make such a definition but they do after we make the definition is nonsense.

.
.
.

.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #65
Demystifier said:
Saying that the atom exists means nothing unless you specify what properties of the atom exist. For instance, does its spin (before one measures it) exist?
and how you can talk about properties without that atom.
no object, no property.
.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
995
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K