ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th December 2019, 02:11 AM   #921
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
If you are claiming that matter exists and is detectable, 'matter' as a substance outside and independent of consciousness . . . then it would be up to you to provide proof this matter.

No! Neither I nor anyone else has to make any such claims about "reality". We have been through this 20 times here already. All that anyone has to do, and all that science has to do, is describe whatever we think we detect ... we do not have to make any claims about "reality" ... the only reason anyone here is talking about it, is because some long dead philosophers once claimed that we could not "prove" that such things exist outside of our mere thoughts ... but as I explained several times before, that is a 100% red-herring from those philosophers, because we cannot actually "prove" anything in that sense of being completely certain ...

... and science very conspicuously and very obviously does NOT claim to "prove" such things.

You are the one claiming that we do not detect any actual external reality ... so the burden is upon you to show with good evidence why no such reality exists.
IanS 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
Old 10th December 2019, 02:17 AM   #922
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,792
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Excuse me? I have answered your question honestly no matter how dissatisfied you may be.

I believe it is now my turn to ask you a question (for the physics students here):

According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

Classical physics emerges from the more fundamental theory of quantum physics, quantum physics is logically prior.

Right?

But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?


Can you explain this? Or is it better to just shut up and calculate?
Students is a lot to say. Amateurs at the most. I consider myself a prudent amateur. I mean, I just ask.
What does "to figure" mean? To represent?
David Mo 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
Old 10th December 2019, 02:20 AM   #923
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Excuse me? I have answered your question honestly no matter how dissatisfied you may be.

I believe it is now my turn to ask you a question (for the physics students here):

According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

Classical physics emerges from the more fundamental theory of quantum physics, quantum physics is logically prior.

Right?

But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?


Can you explain this? Or is it better to just shut up and calculate?

I don't think you have even tried to answer the question. I'm happy to reply to your subsequent questions, after you explain where or why Heisenberg was making a mistake in what he concluded from QM about the reality of either "particles" or the whole universe ... can you answer that or not?

And while you are it - can you tell us what any of this has to do with claims that macrsoppic reality does not exist (ie a claim that only disembodied thoughts/consciousness exists)?
IanS 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
Old 10th December 2019, 02:35 AM   #924
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,792
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No! Neither I nor anyone else has to make any such claims about "reality". We have been through this 20 times here already. All that anyone has to do, and all that science has to do, is describe whatever we think we detect ... we do not have to make any claims about "reality" ... the only reason anyone here is talking about it, is because some long dead philosophers once claimed that we could not "prove" that such things exist outside of our mere thoughts ... but as I explained several times before, that is a 100% red-herring from those philosophers, because we cannot actually "prove" anything in that sense of being completely certain ...

... and science very conspicuously and very obviously does NOT claim to "prove" such things.

You are the one claiming that we do not detect any actual external reality ... so the burden is upon you to show with good evidence why no such reality exists.
If you don't make any statement about reality, how can you say you're a materialist? You are a phenomenalist. An agnostic.
If you affirm that something exists, be it god or matter, you must justify that it exists. If you cannot give absolute proof you need contingent reasons.
David Mo 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
Old 10th December 2019, 03:58 AM   #925
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,560
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Everyone? Every one... one of what?



Sounds religious. One. What's a one?



I prefer realism, a body. Like everybody.



Is that what you meant?
In this context "everyone" refers to the participants of this thread discussion.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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
Old 10th December 2019, 03:59 AM   #926
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,560
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
And who denies that the dream exists?
Yet more dishonest strawman.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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
Old 10th December 2019, 09:40 AM   #927
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,640
Originally Posted by IanS
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Excuse me? I have answered your question honestly no matter how dissatisfied you may be.

I believe it is now my turn to ask you a question (for the physics students here):

According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

Classical physics emerges from the more fundamental theory of quantum physics, quantum physics is logically prior.

Right?

But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?


Can you explain this? Or is it better to just shut up and calculate?

I don't think you have even tried to answer the question. I'm happy to reply to your subsequent questions, after you explain where or why Heisenberg was making a mistake in what he concluded from QM about the reality of either "particles" or the whole universe ... can you answer that or not?

And while you are it - can you tell us what any of this has to do with claims that macrsoppic reality does not exist (ie a claim that only disembodied thoughts/consciousness exists)?

I said I disagreed with the seeming lack of objective reality in Copenhagen.

Anyhow, aren't you even going to try to answer my question to you? We take turns, that's the rational way.
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent 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
Old 10th December 2019, 10:47 AM   #928
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,792
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
I said I disagreed with the seeming lack of objective reality in Copenhagen.

Anyhow, aren't you even going to try to answer my question to you? We take turns, that's the rational way.
Not in this forum.
David Mo 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
Old 11th December 2019, 02:27 AM   #929
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
I said I disagreed with the seeming lack of objective reality in Copenhagen.

Anyhow, aren't you even going to try to answer my question to you? We take turns, that's the rational way.

Yeah, sure - if I find time, then I'm entirely happy to answer any questions you ask. But if you are asking for some explanations about certain aspects of QM, then that's really a different subject than what we are talking about in this thread. QM is very interesting, and very important. But a wider of discussion of QM is really off-topic here, and will just lead us into an endless series of exchanges lasting years.

The only reason I mentioned QM much earlier in the thread was to emphasie that what we have learned from QM is that we probably cannot ever be certain of anything in a universe like ours which appears to be determined by quantum effects at it's most fundamental level ... it means we cannot expect to literally prove things ... and that is key to all the philosophical claims in threads like this, because all the philosophical claims that express doubts about "reality", actually boil down to philosophy saying we cannot "prove" that anything exists except for some thoughts that we apparently have ... but if QM is correct, then we probably cannot "prove" anything! ... so it's then worthless for philosophers to dispute "reality" by claiming that we cannot "prove" it.

If I get some time later this week I will try to answer not only the simple questions that you asked, but also describe much more widely and in much more detail what I think is being described by quantum theory in general.

But the reason I was asking if you could say more than just that you disagree with any particular QM "interpretation", was just to find out what your reasoning was ... ie something a bit deeper than simply saying that you find it suspicious or un-convincing if a Copenhagen conclusion suggests any sense of "non-reality" ... but afaik, none of that "Interpretation" has ever claimed that "reality" does not exist. If Heisenberg or Bohr were claiming that, then it would imply that they themselves would not exist, and their claims or beliefs about reality would not exist either! ... so any claims of that sort about non-reality are a complete non-starter in the first place.

Last edited by IanS; 11th December 2019 at 02:29 AM.
IanS 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
Old 12th December 2019, 03:19 AM   #930
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,792
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Yeah, sure - if I find time, then I'm entirely happy to answer any questions you ask. But if you are asking for some explanations about certain aspects of QM, then that's really a different subject than what we are talking about in this thread. QM is very interesting, and very important. But a wider of discussion of QM is really off-topic here, and will just lead us into an endless series of exchanges lasting years.

The only reason I mentioned QM much earlier in the thread was to emphasie that what we have learned from QM is that we probably cannot ever be certain of anything in a universe like ours which appears to be determined by quantum effects at it's most fundamental level ... it means we cannot expect to literally prove things ... and that is key to all the philosophical claims in threads like this, because all the philosophical claims that express doubts about "reality", actually boil down to philosophy saying we cannot "prove" that anything exists except for some thoughts that we apparently have ... but if QM is correct, then we probably cannot "prove" anything! ... so it's then worthless for philosophers to dispute "reality" by claiming that we cannot "prove" it.

If I get some time later this week I will try to answer not only the simple questions that you asked, but also describe much more widely and in much more detail what I think is being described by quantum theory in general.

But the reason I was asking if you could say more than just that you disagree with any particular QM "interpretation", was just to find out what your reasoning was ... ie something a bit deeper than simply saying that you find it suspicious or un-convincing if a Copenhagen conclusion suggests any sense of "non-reality" ... but afaik, none of that "Interpretation" has ever claimed that "reality" does not exist. If Heisenberg or Bohr were claiming that, then it would imply that they themselves would not exist, and their claims or beliefs about reality would not exist either! ... so any claims of that sort about non-reality are a complete non-starter in the first place.
Some contemporary scientists who have discussed about reality and defended opposite interpretations:
Albert Einstein
Niels Bohr
Basil Hiley
Karl Popper
Thomas S. Kuhn
Werner Heisenberg
Erwin Schrödinger
Richard Feynman
Wolfgang Pauli
Louis de Broglie
Max Born
Paul Dirac
John von Neumann
Stephen Hawkings
Hugh Everett
Eugene Wigner
David Bohm
Basil J. Hiley
Etc.
Etc.

Naturally, the list is limited to the most relevant. It includes the top brass of quantum mechanics, discoverers and developers of the theory. To say that the theories of these scientists are outside the subject of a thread on reality is an attempt to diminish the importance of the subject from the deepest ignorance.

As I have already said, the assertion of some members of the Copenhagen school that reality does not exist cannot be understood as a subjective idealism. Not even Berkeley, the only more or less pure representative of this school, was able to affirm such a thing absolutely. What they mean is that concepts we use to refer to quantum objects are not objective, independent of the observer, but are produced in the act of knowledge. Therefore, if we remove the act of observation, these phenomena would not exist. What is really surprising is not that scientific objects are phenomena, but that quantum reality itself is affected by this indeterminacy. It is not a problem of method but of quantum reality. It is not that we cannot predict the place of a particle because we lack some data to do so, it is that particles does not have a place in space until they are measured.
Some of the scientists mentioned above related their interpretation to Berkeley, Mach or Hume not because they accepted their theories as a whole, but because they adopted more or less the main criterion of English empiricism that "to be is to be perceived". Their anti-realism was epistemological rather than metaphysical. This can be seen very well by reading the article Einstein devoted to Mach and Hume.

I believe that all subsequent theories around the reality of quantum mechanics are attempts to counteract the subversive interpretation of Copenhagen. Apparently, they have not succeeded and this interpretation remains the dominant one, apparently sustained by new experiments in recent years. Apparently.

Last edited by David Mo; 12th December 2019 at 03:40 AM.
David Mo 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
Old 12th December 2019, 08:57 AM   #931
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,224
And wait a minute... Apple Jacks don't even taste like apples!
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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
Old Yesterday, 08:01 AM   #932
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,224
What happened? Did all the Navel Gazers disappear because I stopped thinking about them?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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
Old Yesterday, 08:09 AM   #933
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,560
They proved they didn't exist and disappeared in a puff of logic*


*Adams plagiarism.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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
Old Yesterday, 04:30 PM   #934
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,640
Originally Posted by IanS
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
I said I disagreed with the seeming lack of objective reality in Copenhagen.

Anyhow, aren't you even going to try to answer my question to you? We take turns, that's the rational way.

Yeah, sure - if I find time, then I'm entirely happy to answer any questions you ask.

You're being paged
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent 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
Old Today, 03:11 AM   #935
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
You're being paged

I'm sorry I don't know what that means ... though I suppose it means you are waiting for what I have to say about QM? ... well that requires a huge detailed reply, at a time when I'm very busy with family guests just before Christmas ... and that cannot be a priority at the moment.

Though as I said before, (a) that subject is really off topic here anyway, and (b) none of those named physicists were credibly claiming that the world & they themselves never existed (which is the subject we have been arguing about here ... and as far as I can see that argument here is over - there is simply no good evidence for any claim of non-reality).
IanS 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
Old Today, 05:02 AM   #936
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,640
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I'm sorry I don't know what that means ... though I suppose it means you are waiting for what I have to say about QM? ... well that requires a huge detailed reply, at a time when I'm very busy with family guests just before Christmas ... and that cannot be a priority at the moment.

Though as I said before, (a) that subject is really off topic here anyway, and (b) none of those named physicists were credibly claiming that the world & they themselves never existed (which is the subject we have been arguing about here ... and as far as I can see that argument here is over - there is simply no good evidence for any claim of non-reality).

https://www.theonion.com/polite-disn...key-1834976329
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent 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
Old Today, 06:59 AM   #937
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,686
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Some contemporary scientists who have discussed about reality and defended opposite interpretations:

Discussing the reality of properties of particles, such as unmeasured spins or polarities or positions, is not suggesting the particles don't exist. How are measurements being made on particles that don't exist?

Most quantum physicists still agree with Schroedinger that the cat thought experiment points out an inadequacy in our understanding of QM, rather than in the realness of reality. Part of the thought experiment is a device inside the box that detects whether a radioactive particle has decayed. That's a measurement, and once it's been made, the particle has either decayed or not, and the cat is either alive or dead.

(Suppose instead of a cat being alive or dead, it's a cloud of infectious germs. When the experimenter opens the box and breathes in the germs, they still have no conscious knowledge of their state. Theories holding that states remain uncertain until someone is consciously aware of the results would hold that the infection simultaneously does and does not spread through the experimenter's body until finally they do or do not begin to notice symptoms, or have a diagnostic blood test or something similar. Meanwhile it may or may not have spread unnoticed to other people...)

As I pointed out before, if maintaining a quantum superposition only required no one looking at the result, then quantum computing should be as easy to engineer as regular computing.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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
Old Today, 07:21 AM   #938
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Excuse me? I have answered your question honestly no matter how dissatisfied you may be.

I believe it is now my turn to ask you a question (for the physics students here):

According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

Classical physics emerges from the more fundamental theory of quantum physics, quantum physics is logically prior.

Right?

But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?


Can you explain this? Or is it better to just shut up and calculate?


OK, lets just start with your first question (highlighted, below), which will probably end-up brining in all the other questions (plus a lot more) anyway -


Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Excuse me? I have answered your question honestly no matter how dissatisfied you may be.

I believe it is now my turn to ask you a question (for the physics students here):

Q1. According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

OK, in the absence of having enough spare time right now to get into a more detailed quantum explanation of things like various forms of the double-slit experiment (where I think that is probably what you are in fact asking about) I'll just try to make a couple of brief general comments on the few things you did raise as questions, starting with the above -

– when you say “Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics”, I take it from that, that you are only talking about “measurements” applied to sub-atomic sized particles? You are not claiming that in general “the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature”? Correct? You are just saying the process of what you call “measurement” is “fundamentally different” when applied to atomic or subatomic sized particles?

OK, well for that – I would not say the process of measurement is "fundamentally" different.

What is different compared to the measurements that we make on an everyday macroscopic scale, is only that the almost unimaginably tiny particles (eg photons on the Planck Scale) are of course likely to be altered to a much greater degree by interference from what are typically vastly more macroscopic instruments that we are (afaik) almost always using to make the “measurements” … often called “observations”, but that word needs to be in quotes as well, because it's likely to be misleading … we are not actually “observing” the particle-field itself, and we are not actually “measuring” the particle-field itself … what we are detecting is the response of the particle-field to that process of “observation/measurement”, and that's a process which is typically more enough to change quite a lot about the characteristics or properties of the particle-field.

But that's not “fundamentally different” from what happens when we make measurements or observations of things on our everyday macroscopic scale … the thing we are measuring still gets changed by the action of detection or measurement, but the change is to small too matter to us.

If in all of the above, you are thinking of what I think you have described several times as the “collapse of the wave function”, then what do you think is actually happening there? What do you think is “collapsing” or changing about the properties of the particle when it's “measured/observed”? To be clearer to you on that question -

- you brought up this entire issue apparently in support of Larry (and/or others here) who seemed to be claiming that reality has no existence, and where you gave some quotes from Heisenberg which iirc were according to you, claiming that the particles themselves have no existence until we observe them, ie as if to say that reality does not exist unless and until we try to “experience” it … but when I asked you about that, you also said that you did not in any case actually believe that so-called "Copenhagen Interpretation” if or when it claimed any such non-reality (such as claiming that the particle did not exist until we try to “observe” it). OK, so can we get this part of you posts and your questions sorted out before we go on to any further questions -

1. Are you supporting the idea that the particle-field does not exist until be we try to observe it?

2. Whether you are supporting that idea or not – what do you think happens when the so-called “wave function” is said to “collapse”? What do you think any such statement actually means, and what do you think is actually happening when that measurement is made?
IanS 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
Old Today, 07:32 AM   #939
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,640
But you haven't answered my question.

ETA: thought I was confirming non-controversial assumptions in saying:

According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

Classical physics emerges from the more fundamental theory of quantum physics, quantum physics is logically prior.

Right?


My question is:

But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?

Can you explain this?
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski

Last edited by Frank Newgent; Today at 07:45 AM.
Frank Newgent 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
Old Today, 08:56 AM   #940
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,224
"I demand you personally and completely solve to me right now one of the most complex problems in modern science before you reject the philosophical concept that 'Durr you can't prove like... *takes hit off of joint* that... we are aren't like.... just like in the Matrix or something.' Oh and this one old white dude who lived back when people still though maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat said something too and he gave it an official name in Latin so..."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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
Old Today, 09:45 AM   #941
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,560
It's not even that. It is merely an argument from personal incredulity, the whole "why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?"

"Fundamental " in this context is nothing more than an opinion of how the world should work.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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
Old Today, 11:10 AM   #942
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
But you haven't answered my question.

ETA: thought I was confirming non-controversial assumptions in saying:

According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

Classical physics emerges from the more fundamental theory of quantum physics, quantum physics is logically prior.

Right?


My question is:

But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?

Can you explain this?


Well firstly, you definitely did not answer the questions that I asked you in the first place. So it's not reasonable for you to keep replying by saying that you have answered them and that you now demand that I answer some extra questions from you!

Look, I am trying to help our understanding on the QM issue here, even though it's completely off topic (and even though I don't have time for that at the moment).

However - your above question is badly put in the first place. Because you are saying that when we try to make QM calculations "you (first) need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened", well that is wrong! We do not need to first perform a physical experiment, and we do not need to first "figure out what happened", before we can make any mathematical analysis of what we think subatomic particle-fields might do under any particular circumstances.

On the contrary, in the case of both QM and Relativity, most of the theory (maths) has come first, and has predicted what we might expect to discover if & when certain types of experiment might one day be possible in the future.

And before you argue about that as well – no, the above does not mean that no experimental results were available before anyone thought of QM or Relativity. Because throughout human history, all sorts of experiments have produced unexpected results that were waiting for explanations. So for example, iirc the electron was experimentally discovered decades before any real progress was made with what later became the maths of quantum theory. But what then happened was that quantum theory was developed partly to explain such experimental results, but in the course of working out the maths, we found that QM predicted all sorts of other properties for all sorts of other particles (and subsequently for all sorts of energy “fields”) that had not been experimentally detected or even ever thought of at all until the maths of QM started to predict those things. And iirc, the same thing happened with Relativity.

So the answer to your question, quoting your own use of words is – No, you do not “need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened”, before “performing actual quantum physics calculations”.
IanS 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
Old Today, 11:25 AM   #943
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,881
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
My question is:

But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?

Can you explain this?

Also in that above question - when you refer to "classical instrumentation", and when you say "you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental", you are actually thinking/asking about the so-called "double-slit" experiments, are you not? And I just asked you if that was the case a couple of posts back.

Are you asking me to discuss the various types of double-slit experiment, and to explain why I think some of the comments attributed to figures like Heisenberg are mistaken if he was supposed to have said or believed that the so-called “collapse of the wave-function” meant that no reality actually existed unless or until a conscious mind thought about it (!!??!!) … is that what your questions really boil down to?
IanS 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
Old Today, 11:43 AM   #944
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,224
The question poised is "Is reality real?"

If you find yourself arguing for or against a specific aspect of it, you need to admit you have conceded the original question as no longer valid.

I'm not going to let the Naval Gazers turn the question they keep demanding be answered into another long form, context-less "Everything science (as I narrowly and badly define it) doesn't have an answer (that I understand) for yet so therefore vague, glib playing with the language with airs on has all the answer" diatribe.

Shove the "Okay here's a list of everything science doesn't understand therefore Woo" back into your wizards hats people.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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
Old Today, 06:18 PM   #945
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,640
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Also in that above question - when you refer to "classical instrumentation", and when you say "you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental", you are actually thinking/asking about the so-called "double-slit" experiments, are you not? And I just asked you if that was the case a couple of posts back.

Are you asking me to discuss the various types of double-slit experiment, and to explain why I think some of the comments attributed to figures like Heisenberg are mistaken if he was supposed to have said or believed that the so-called “collapse of the wave-function” meant that no reality actually existed unless or until a conscious mind thought about it (!!??!!) … is that what your questions really boil down to?

No, unless you want to make this more complicated than a single question.

Quote:
According to Copenhagen the measurement process is a fundamentally different process from any other in nature. Large object obeying classical physics meets small object obeying quantum physics.

Right?

This seems unambiguous to me. There is no other process anywhere in nature that is anything like what the measurement process is in the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Quote:
Classical physics emerges from the more fundamental theory of quantum physics, quantum physics is logically prior.

Right?

Classical physics rules are the consequence of the quantum rules acting on enormous numbers of objects. I believe that is a standard interpretation of what happens.

Quote:
But when performing actual quantum physics calculations... you need classical instrumentation to figure out what happened. That seems a contradiction, why do you need what is less fundamental to figure out what is more fundamental?

Can you explain this?

Just say "no" if this is too complicated for you.
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.