The discussion centers on the relationship between quantum mechanics (QM) and ontology, highlighting the tendency of physicists to avoid ontological considerations due to their unfalsifiable nature. Key figures such as Karl Popper are referenced, emphasizing the blurred boundaries of scientific inquiry as seen in string theory. The conversation reveals that while ontological discussions can be intellectually stimulating, they often diverge from practical physics, leading to a split among physicists into various interpretation-biased groups. The complexities of ontological interpretations, including materialistic and idealistic monism, are acknowledged, suggesting that physicists generally prefer established models over speculative ontological frameworks.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, philosophers of science, and students of quantum mechanics interested in the intersection of physics and ontology, as well as those exploring the implications of various interpretations of quantum mechanics.
? One cannot even define entities without stating their defining properties, i.e., some facts about them.physika said:Entities : example; Electrons (be a wave, a particle...)
Facts: Properties (attributes, qualities, features, characteristics...)
facts are secondary, I.E. derived.
.A. Neumaier said:? One cannot even define entities without stating their defining properties, i.e., some facts about them.
Without a sufficiently precise definition of a concept X it is undetermined what the statement that X exists means.physika said:.
What do you say ? that if you don't define it, it doesn't exist?
without definition, there is no existence ??
.
.A. Neumaier said:Without a sufficiently precise definition of a concept X it is undetermined what the statement that X exists means.
and how you can talk about properties without that atom.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?