View Single Post
Old 25th August 2019, 05:08 PM   #525
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,536
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The point of my earlier question about quantum mechanics and the nature of reality is that yes, sure, philosophers can speculate and argue about the answers to such questions. But they have no process for coming to any agreement, so they can't produce reliable answers to those questions.
At the time quantum theory was being developed the majority of philosophers of science also felt that speculations about "reality" were meaningless philosophic navel-gazing. They called these "pseudo-problems".

It wasn't the full-time philsophers who were worrying about whether physics really was describing reality.

The "philosophers" who had these "navel gazing" discussions of which you disapprove were the same scientists that developed the theory, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Bohr and others and these discussion had real implications about the way the theory developed.
Where we have been able to agree on answers, it's because scientists have been able to do experiments and make observations.
And why do you think that this is a point against the philosophy of science? The "navel-gazing" by the major scientists of the 20th century was the process that led to the design of many of those experiments.

But if you do not care whether or not physics is describing "reality" then the Copenhagen Interpretation is fine. As Bohr said, who cares if the Moon is there or not when no-one is observing it, you couldn't possibly test that anyway.

Spooky action at a distance is only "spooky" if you have in intuition that physics is describing "reality" or some version of it that you are expected there to be. Otherwise it is quite uncontroversial.

There is no measurement problem unless you are making the assumption that there really is a Universe.

But physicists like to think that they really are describing reality. Hence the continuing discomfort with the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 25th August 2019 at 06:03 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top