Should Quantum Randomness be called Supernatural?

[wuliheron]

You should entertain the possibility that the reverse might be happening. Unabashedly continuing to do metaphysics of a technical term (): You wish to introduce a new technical term. This term will redefine the field, it will change the meaning of the natural which becomes demarcated in a new way. If one is already willing to make that step, then I would argue that this choice is a possibility to consider if one is still content with the nuances of the old meaning.

As far as I can tell preternatural does everything that supernatural does, except establishing nature as a given. At this point of history we might benefit from that slight shift in technical meaning. It would allow science to finally perceive itself - to see itself as an active maker of the natural. With supernatural we keep the blind spot. But who am I kidding, the myth that words don't matter and that technicalities are not politics is much too strong.

What rubbish. The kind of mindless rambling I would expect from someone strung out on drugs and yet another attempt to derail the thread. What will you do next, attempt to justify Freudian psychology as pertinent to Indeterminacy?

 

[cosmographer]

Mindless rambling, thanks. You could easily get clarification as every single sentence in that post pertains to established notions in a range of academic field, but you assume that it is the result of someone "strung out on drugs". We are talking about a single word that might gain a new technical companion. We both wish to be pragmatic, but differ massively in our understanding of what the pragmata are.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I'm not sure what specific contributions Asians made to quantum mechanics; it was something I read about somewhere and supposedly it was just over a short period of a few years. They certainly aren't supermen or from Mars so I don't expect there to be an endless number of insights a different natural language can facilitate.

I'd say mathematics is what tends to lead the way with natural languages usually struggling to keep up or even hobbling progress in no small part due to all the taboos and cultural conventions. The difficulty people still have expressing quantum mechanics in natural language a century after its discovery therefore comes as no surprise. Its not simply because quanta defy common sense or our experience, but because natural language is more personal and culture specific and just comes with a lot more baggage in general.

I don't know if the distinction between the natural and supernatural is somehow innate and it really doesn't matter to me. What does matter is that it is a fundamental concept and one that has been used and abused for far too long in both the name of both science and superstition. It is quite likely another hurdle to be overcome if we are to continue making progress in quantum mechanics. Probably for better and for worse science will be forced to deal with concept itself and transform it in the process.

Thanks for the response, I find the topic interesting.
And, thanks for the fixed link, cosmographer.

 

[wuliheron]

Mindless rambling, thanks. You could easily get clarification as every single sentence in that post pertains to established notions in a range of academic field, but you assume that it is the result of someone "strung out on drugs". We are talking about a single word that might gain a new technical companion. We both wish to be pragmatic, but differ massively in our understanding of what the pragmata are.

Spouting techo-babble and metaphysics is certainly not my idea of pragmatism! There are plenty of well respected linguistic theories and if you wish to avoid rambling aimlessly I suggest you use one.

 

[cosmographer]

I suggest rereading James and Dewey if you feel pragmatism is not about metaphysical considerations. But thanks for your patience along the ride. Hope you get some more answers that will feel productive to you.

 

[wuliheron]

I suggest rereading James and Dewey if you feel pragmatism is not about metaphysical considerations. But thanks for your patience along the ride. Hope you get some more answers that will feel productive to you.

Arcane nineteenth century philosophy has nothing to do with quantum mechanics either. I suggest you read up on their successors.

 

[cosmographer]

Arcane philosophy! cries the Taoist. It might not have anything to do with quantum mechanics, but it sure has some interesting thought to offer when you need to choose a technical language. A word that should complement the word nature, that weirdest of all things arcane philosophy has given us to inherit (and pragmatism incidentally took prominent issue with)! I should not enjoy this. Have a good one.

 

[wuliheron]

Arcane philosophy! cries the Taoist. It might not have anything to do with quantum mechanics, but it sure has some interesting thought to offer when you need to choose a technical language. A word that should complement the word nature, that weirdest of all things arcane philosophy has given us to inherit (and pragmatism incidentally took prominent issue with)! I should not enjoy this. Have a good one.

It has little to say of any relevance to modern linguistic theory either. They are potbelly stoves in a world of jet engines and rockets.

 

[cosmographer]

I was really not going to post any more, but somehow I'm relieved that you drew that analogy. It enabled me to see more clearly one of the things that is going wrong here. You do indeed seem like a thinker that has thoroughly internalized the modern Western sense of progress: "Make haste we have to escape the past (without looking around much and even less ahead!)". I would argue in another discussion that our very misunderstanding here is a result of one of us wanting to move fast and smoothly ahead, while the other wants to move slower for every decision and collect what might be at stake.

The moderns were never good at taking care of the abstractions (yes, the very words this thread deals with) that they allow to make them think. Sure you'll say this is irrelevant to the problem of naming a domain of the world in technical terms, but precisely my problematisation of the issue changes what kind of considerations may be relevant. If they become relevant is another story. Cue hare-tortoise story outro. Curtain.

 

[wuliheron]

I was really not going to post any more, but somehow I'm relieved that you drew that analogy. It enabled me to see more clearly one of the things that is going wrong here. You do indeed seem like a thinker that has thoroughly internalized the modern Western sense of progress: "Make haste we have to escape the past (without looking around much and even less ahead!)". I would argue in another discussion that our very misunderstanding here is a result of one of us wanting to move fast and smoothly ahead, while the other wants to move slower for every decision and collect what might be at stake.

The moderns were never good at taking care of the abstractions (yes, the very words this thread deals with) that they allow to make them think. Sure you'll say this is irrelevant to the problem of naming a domain of the world in technical terms, but precisely my problematisation of the issue changes what kind of considerations may be relevant. If they become relevant is another story. Cue hare-tortoise story outro. Curtain.

Delusions of grandeur now. Why I am not surprised?

 

[cosmographer]

(The cast reappears!) Always, but also just really fond of playing

 

[Willowz]

wuliheron, I think you made the mistake of trying to describe QI in terms of natural every day language. Doing so obviously leads you to using words such as "supernatural". Pragmatically speaking QI is best descried in it's own framework and trying to describe it in another framework leads to word salads and gibberish.

 

[wuliheron]

wuliheron, I think you made the mistake of trying to describe QI in terms of natural every day language. Doing so obviously leads you to using words such as "supernatural". Pragmatically speaking QI is best descried in it's own framework and trying to describe it in another framework leads to word salads and gibberish.

I suppose then physicists just happen to love word salad and gibberish.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed temporarily pending Moderation and cleanup...