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: 4,887
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: 4,852
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: 4,887
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: 4,852
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: 89,201
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: 89,201
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: 6,695
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: 4,852
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: 4,887
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: 4,852
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: 21,954
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 online now   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 14th December 2019, 08:01 AM   #932
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,954
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 online now   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 14th December 2019, 08:09 AM   #933
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,201
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 14th December 2019, 04:30 PM   #934
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,695
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 15th December 2019, 03:11 AM   #935
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,887
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 15th December 2019, 05:02 AM   #936
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,695
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 15th December 2019, 06:59 AM   #937
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,763
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 15th December 2019, 07:21 AM   #938
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,887
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 15th December 2019, 07:32 AM   #939
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,695
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; 15th December 2019 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 15th December 2019, 08:56 AM   #940
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,954
"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 online now   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 15th December 2019, 09:45 AM   #941
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,201
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 15th December 2019, 11:10 AM   #942
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,887
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 15th December 2019, 11:25 AM   #943
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,887
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 15th December 2019, 11:43 AM   #944
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,954
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 online now   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 15th December 2019, 06:18 PM   #945
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,695
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
Old 16th December 2019, 02:54 AM   #946
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,887
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
No, unless you want to make this more complicated than a single question.




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.




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.




Just say "no" if this is too complicated for you.

Well I've just given you the answers to each of those questions. Your questions are badly phrased, as if you did not really understand what you are talking about.

I think that the quotes which you gave as attributed to Heisenberg (and some others), do relate directly to the double-slit experiment. And afaik what those individuals were talking about was their interpretation (in words, not in maths) of what they thought was a possible explanation for what what was at the time being detected/observed in the double-slit experiment ... so I think you are in fact asking about that experiment and it's apparently unexpected and confusing results.

And when you say this "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." ... the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation does not have a "measurement process" ... afaik, the term "Copenhagen Interpretation” is just a name for what some QM-physicists working in Copenhagen thought about, or said about, what they believed to be a reasonable interpretation of the maths as far as it showed the possible behaviour of what at the time they all thought of as "particles" ... it's an interpretation, or opinion, of what they thought the maths showed ... it's not as you just called it a "measurement process".

As far this is concerned "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" ... personally I do not know if all of classical physics can be mathematically derived directly from the maths of QM, so personally I think it's safer just to say that our description of classical physics is compatible with QM (and vice versa) ... the difference is that I'm being more cautious about claiming that all of classical physics can be derived starting from the maths of QM. And I'm being more cautious about that simply because I have never myself tried to make those derivations, and I don't know how accurately or how unambiguously anyone else might have done that ... so unless I have personally understood clearly how that has been done, I prefer to say more simply that afaik what we had previously derived as the explanations of classical physics, is said to be entirely consistent with what was later discovered as QM (and that's just exercising a proper and necessary degree of scientific caution … which you do not seem to be doing in any of what you have repeated here).

And lastly when you say this “Just say "no" if this is too complicated for you” … that's just a wind-up accusation from you, and you've tried that before several times in your last few posts. That's just childish and silly. But also when you say that, you are implying that you know far better than I do, which is entirely possible, so in that case what are your qualifications in quantum physics or the maths of fundamental particle interactions? Do you have a doctorate in some aspects of that? I would not normally ask you/anyone for that, but when you are trying to be repeatedly so dismissive, and when you try to act so “flash”, I think you'd better tell us what you do have as qualified understanding of this subject. Because people who do know something about this subject, and who do have some academic background in the subject, have usually learnt to stay far more humble and more cautions about they can say.
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 16th December 2019, 08:28 AM   #947
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Just say "no" if this is too complicated for you.
The answer is not very complicated. We need macroobjects to measure microobjects because we don't have direct access to them. It has nothing to do with a supposed degree of fundamentality.

However, quantum mechanics is fundamental in relation to classical physics for two reasons:

-QM is an answer to some basic problems that CPh cannot solve.
-CPh objects are composed of QM objects, even if they are two different levels of emerging matter.

I don't find any problem in these answers, for once.
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 16th December 2019, 08:47 AM   #948
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well I've just given you the answers to each of those questions. Your questions are badly phrased, as if you did not really understand what you are talking about.

I think that the quotes which you gave as attributed to Heisenberg (and some others), do relate directly to the double-slit experiment. And afaik what those individuals were talking about was their interpretation (in words, not in maths) of what they thought was a possible explanation for what what was at the time being detected/observed in the double-slit experiment ... so I think you are in fact asking about that experiment and it's apparently unexpected and confusing results.

And when you say this "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." ... the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation does not have a "measurement process" ... afaik, the term "Copenhagen Interpretation” is just a name for what some QM-physicists working in Copenhagen thought about, or said about, what they believed to be a reasonable interpretation of the maths as far as it showed the possible behaviour of what at the time they all thought of as "particles" ... it's an interpretation, or opinion, of what they thought the maths showed ... it's not as you just called it a "measurement process".

As far this is concerned "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" ... personally I do not know if all of classical physics can be mathematically derived directly from the maths of QM, so personally I think it's safer just to say that our description of classical physics is compatible with QM (and vice versa) ... the difference is that I'm being more cautious about claiming that all of classical physics can be derived starting from the maths of QM. And I'm being more cautious about that simply because I have never myself tried to make those derivations, and I don't know how accurately or how unambiguously anyone else might have done that ... so unless I have personally understood clearly how that has been done, I prefer to say more simply that afaik what we had previously derived as the explanations of classical physics, is said to be entirely consistent with what was later discovered as QM (and that's just exercising a proper and necessary degree of scientific caution … which you do not seem to be doing in any of what you have repeated here).

And lastly when you say this “Just say "no" if this is too complicated for you” … that's just a wind-up accusation from you, and you've tried that before several times in your last few posts. That's just childish and silly. But also when you say that, you are implying that you know far better than I do, which is entirely possible, so in that case what are your qualifications in quantum physics or the maths of fundamental particle interactions? Do you have a doctorate in some aspects of that? I would not normally ask you/anyone for that, but when you are trying to be repeatedly so dismissive, and when you try to act so “flash”, I think you'd better tell us what you do have as qualified understanding of this subject. Because people who do know something about this subject, and who do have some academic background in the subject, have usually learnt to stay far more humble and more cautions about they can say.
The Copenhagen interpretation is not mathematical. It is a response to the multitude of experiments and theories (mathematics and physics) that developed the school of this name and have continued to this day. Inside and outside Copenhagen.
If you pretend that the objects of classical physics are the real ones and that quantum mechanics is not, you will find two dead ends:

-That quantum mechanics is more explanatory than classical physics. In which case their proposal is false and the reality is QM.
-Since the objects of CPh are formed by those of QM, there is a dualism of entities that coexist in the same real object. One would be more basic than the other, which is not easy to explain.

Both things sound very speculative and, therefore, philosophical in the worst of senses.

What trouble you're in!
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 16th December 2019, 10:58 AM   #949
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,201
Models are not the object, QM/QED and so on are models we have created that allow us to make astonishing accurate predictions about the world.
__________________
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 16th December 2019, 11:42 AM   #950
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,954
The map is not the territory. The picture is not the object. The model is not the process. The words are not the reality.

THE DESCRIPTION IS NOT THE THING.

A goddamn golden retriever understands reality enough to get that the hand signals are not literally the same thing as the treat he gets when he performs a trick. This is not that hard.

If you have to obtusely pretend you don't know how language works just to maintain the "Philosophizer" character affect just to keep the "reality" question going just because you're made that science you never put any effort into understand doesn't live room for God that's your problem.

Stop having a goddamn big showy made up existential crisis because Apple Jacks don't taste like apples just to justify anti-intellectualism.
__________________
- "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 online now   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 17th December 2019, 12:25 AM   #951
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,852
So what's an electron? Does it exist?
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 17th December 2019, 03:09 AM   #952
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,695
According to Copenhagen... only as a probability distribution over sets of allowable states.
__________________
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 17th December 2019, 06:02 AM   #953
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,763
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
According to Copenhagen... only as a probability distribution over sets of allowable states.

Sure, and a tree only exists as a colony of cells surrounding a mass of cellulose residue. So what?
__________________
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 17th December 2019, 06:08 AM   #954
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 89,201
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
So what's an electron? Does it exist?
A super character in the Marvel comic universe:

....
Electron is a member of the Imperial Guard, a multi-ethnic group of super-powered alien beings who act as enforcers of the laws of the Shi'ar Empire....

Certainly does exist, you can read comics Electron has appeared in.
__________________
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 17th December 2019, 06:24 AM   #955
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Sure, and a tree only exists as a colony of cells surrounding a mass of cellulose residue. So what?
Why don't you care about the tree?
__________________
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 17th December 2019, 08:05 AM   #956
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Sure, and a tree only exists as a colony of cells surrounding a mass of cellulose residue. So what?
I was not asking about trees.
Are you sure electrons exist? How do you know?
I hope you don't get in the way of antics. I'm seriously asking.

Last edited by David Mo; 17th December 2019 at 08:16 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 17th December 2019, 08:29 AM   #957
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
Why don't you care about the tree?
Rather the problem consists in what reality have those objects that are considered as the basis of observable phenomena. How can we establish the existence of unobservables? The electron, for example. Do they have a real reference or are they simple manipulation tools?

Here it seems that there are those who ignore the problem by saying that they are simple maps or models. But a model is a conventional construction to schematize a reality that is very complex. In reality there are no discontinuous lines that mark a border or round points that represent a city. If science is arbitrary, how can we say that the electron is something that reflects reality?

Beware because the concept of map or model are metaphorical.
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 17th December 2019, 08:49 AM   #958
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,954
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I was not asking about trees.
Are you sure electrons exist? How do you know?
I hope you don't get in the way of antics. I'm seriously asking.
Your clumsy setup to try and trap someone in saying something that you can twist into claiming they are saying "The existence of electrons are a matter of faith" is transparent.

Electrons are not the same as God.
__________________
- "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 online now   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 17th December 2019, 08:59 AM   #959
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,763
My point regarding trees and electrons is that as soon as you say, "X exists in the form of Y," you're confirming that X exists. Even if you insert dismissive adverbs in there: "X only exists as Y" for instance.

Rainbows only exist as patterns of reflection of sunlight in raindrops. Okay, so if you were expecting a colorful steel archway that you could climb up or find a pot of gold next to, you're going to be disappointed, but if you're arguing they don't exist at all, describing the manner of their existence does not make your case.

If electrons didn't exist, they wouldn't be probability distributions over sets of allowable states. They'd be nonexistent instead, like tetryons or bigons.

Electrons are eminently observable, and observable as close to directly as anything else. Try touching your tongue to the terminals of a 9-volt battery, for example.
__________________
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 17th December 2019, 09:03 AM   #960
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: God's own NJ USA
Posts: 9,263
Pretty impressive that this puppy is approaching a thousand posts, considering the title.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal 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 12:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.