If you read the intellectual biographical recollections of Heisenberg (or Schrödinger, or Einstein) you'll find that there are lots of philosophical and other a priori considerations that grounded their theoretical innovations. — Pierre-Normand

Of course, I didn't mean to imply that the development of new scientific theories is mere curve-fitting. Philosophical and even esthetic considerations played a role. But if that's the extent of the "profound similarities," that's not much.

If you read the intellectual biographical recollections of Heisenberg (or Schrödinger, or Einstein) you'll find that there are lots of philosophical and other a priori considerations that grounded their theoretical innovations. — Pierre-Normand

They were (ahem) Europeans, who were quite steeped in the European philosophical tradition; unlike, for instance, Sean Carroll and other contemporary physicists who comment on philosophy. Schrodinger frequently referred to Schopenhauer, Heisenberg to the Greek philosophers.

Many are now still convinced that quantum theories and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are 'discoveries of the way the world really is.' But they are not. — ernestm

Heisenberg himself would not have said that. He is famous for saying 'What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning'.

Those who dismiss domains of mind, independent of matter, have already dismissed much that can be explained. — ernestm

That is very much a consequence of the history of Western thought, in particular, subsequent to Descartes, who posited a world comprising mind and matter.

I have read something of the debates between the early Indian atomists and Buddhists; the Buddhists are the ones who argued that the idea of a 'dimensionless point' is incoherent, on account of it not having any sides. However none of the ancients had any ideas corresponding to electromagnetic fields or 'action at a distance' or anything of that nature.

I think the main philosophical significance of quantum mechanics is that it undermines materialism, as Adam Frank explains.

I think the main philosophical significance of quantum mechanics is that it undermines materialism, as Adam Frank explains. — Wayfarer

Except that he explains that there is an interpretation that doesn't do that.

You mean,

The many-worlds Interpretation is one that many materialists favor, but it comes with a steep price. — Adam Frank

That price being, a proliferation of universes. It's a case of a desperate problem calling for a desparate solution, as far as I am concerned.

That price being, a proliferation of universes. It's a case of a desperate problem calling for a desparate solution, as far as I am concerned. — Wayfarer

That is false. There are no more "worlds" in Many Worlds than already exist in cosmology. And the "worlds" don't proliferate. There is no "price" to pay - MW adds no complexity. Some even think the cosmological multiverse and the quantum multiverse are the same thing.

I'm sorry, but the existence of quantum mechanic theory has nothing at all to do with proving or disproving materialism. I have noticed this is a very common error arising from a misunderstanding of dualism.

you should read the essay Ernest. It's wrrtten by someone with credentials in the field.

you should read the essay Ernest. It's wrrtten by someone with credentials in the field. — Wayfarer

The essay which explicitly says that, in order to pretend that QM has anything to say about proving or disproving materialism, you need to pretend QM is an abnormal theory.

Dualism is nothing at all to do with the functionality of models of the material world. It is about how the abstractions we apply to our perception of material states and events might themselves be independent of material reality.

Dualism is nothing at all to do with the functionality of models of the material world. It is about how the abstractions we apply to our perception of material states and events might themselves be independent of material reality. — ernestm

You mean likr non-computable numbers?

that goes back to my first statement. Although we can improve our comprehension by effort, reality is ultimately beyond perfect comprehension. I do remember having some problem understanding imaginary numbers, and I still don't enjoy doing maths with them.

Although we can improve our comprehension by effort, reality is ultimately beyond perfect comprehension. — ernestm

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is proved that reality is perfectly comprehensible.

well, that depends how much of reality you want to comprehend, doesn't it.

well, that depends how much of reality you want to comprehend, doesn't it. — ernestm

Does it? What do you know?

According to you, I can't know any no more than you do, because you understand everything perfectly. So whatever I say you will say is wrong, probably including this statement.

According to you, I can't know any no more than you do, because you understand everything perfectly. So whatever I say you will say is wrong, probably including this statement. — ernestm

It would help if you could construct a sentence.

Anyway, it is proved that reality is comprehensible. it is an exact physical law.

I look forward to your disproof of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. Please do send me the link to your paper )

I look forward to your disproof of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. Please do send me the link to your paper ) — ernestm

Please explain the relevance of Gödel's 2nd theorem?

That's your second problem. You didn't understand the grammar of one of my posts either. rofl.

That's your second problem. You didn't understand the grammar of one of my posts either. rofl. — ernestm

If you can't explain your claimed relevance of Gödel's 2nd theorem to the comprehensibility of reality, then you have been caught bull-shitting.

You were the one who said you understand everything, and as an axiomatic system is consistent only if incomplete, according to the best of current thought on the topic, you must have a solution to it we don't know. So I request your paper on it a second time, and excuse me but I have less entertaining things to do.

You were the one who said you understand everything, — ernestm

You are lying.

and as an axiomatic system is consistent only if incomplete, according to the best of current thought on the topic, you must have a solution to it we don't know — ernestm

What do axiomatic systems have to do with the fundamental comprehensibility of reality?

So I request your paper on it a second time, and excuse me but I have less entertaining things to do. — ernestm

So you are happy to bullshit, but want a reference from me. Well here it is:

http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/deutsch85.pdf

You were the one who said you understand everything,
— ernestm

You are lying. — tom

Well, you're the one who did say:

it is proved that reality is perfectly comprehensible. — tom

So, if reality is perfectly comprehensible, then surely you must understand everything, mustn't you? Doesn't the first entail the second?

Yes, necessarily so, because if you don't understand everything, you can't know that everything is understandable.

So, if reality is perfectly comprehensible, then surely you must understand everything, mustn't you? Doesn't the first entail the second? — Wayfarer

Let me hold you by the hand and give you a childish example: An equation may have a solution, which you may prove must exist, but that does not mean you possess the solution. Is that a bit complicated?

"then surely you must understand everything"? Fucking idiot!

Mind your temper.

'Knowing that there might be a solution to an equation' is a far cry from claiming that 'reality is perfectly comprehensible'.

Mind your temper. — Wayfarer

Pardon me for literally understanding everything.

Yes, necessarily so, because if you don't understand everything, you can't know that everything is understandable. — ernestm

You asked for the proof, you got it.

If I bring home six beers and put them in the fridge, and I see my son take three, I 'comprehend perfectly' that there's three left.

Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?

If I bring home six beers and put them in the fridge, and I see my son take three, — Wayfarer

Six beers, three beers, maybe you are on a different intellectual plane? Hard to tell.