OK, should have thought of that. I was kind of thinking photons, which don't interact with their neighbors nearly as significantly as something like a charged particle. So I pictured a laser weapon aimed at the slits...A: Yes, but only up to the point where the rate is so high that the interaction between different electrons can no longer be neglected. — Wayfarer
The moon was measured. It's still there despite it not being measured at the moment (like it's possible to ever not measure the moon from anywhere as close as Earth). The proton is like that, but with not quite as many 9's to express the probability of it still 'existing'.It's the nature of that existence which is the philosophical conundrum. It's not as if it's precise position and momentum is unknown, but that it's indeterminable. It will be found whenever it is observed, but the sense in which it exists when not being observed is what is at issue.
Thanks for the clarification, which was mostly about the terminology. Yes, it definitely has wave-like characteristics.The Schrödinger equation's solution is called a wave function. If one simplifies the equation considerably it has the form dQ/dt=kQ, which has solutions involving e^it=cost+isint, giving it repetitive or wave-like characteristics. — jgill
The moon was measured. It's still there despite it not being measured at the moment (like it's possible to ever not measure the moon from anywhere as close as Earth). The proton is like that, but with not quite as many 9's to express the probability of it still 'existing'. — noAxioms
Note that if I say something different from the physics-forum guys, they trump me. There are some really solid experts over there, and I don't often respond to questions for fear of putting my foot in my mouth. — noAxioms
The others might still say it 'exists', in the manner of say energy, charge, baryon & lepton number conservation. It can't just not-exist. It just lacks objective properties that put it in a specific state. — noAxioms
The quip was said in the early days of quantum theory when what is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation was 1) pretty much all they had, and 2) was strictly an epistemological interpretation, concerning what was known about a system and not what was. Ontologically, only the Wigner interpretation (leading to solipsism) suggests that human observation has anything to do with what is.I often bring up the famous rhetorical question that Albert Einstein asked his friend on an afternoon walk (I think it was Abraham Pais): 'Does the moon continue to exist when we're not looking at it?'
I think the answer is obviously 'yes' but the question I would like to ask is, why did he feel compelled to ask it in the first place? Why did it bother him? — Wayfarer
That they do. Wrong forum to ask that sort of stuff. But most of the forums that do allow it don't have the sort of expertise found there. I mean, I'm a mod on one of them, and apparently 'top dog' on things like relativity and maybe QM, which is pathetic since I would utterly fail a college level exam on either subject. I learned enough to glean informed implications of both theories on philosophical topics, but not enough to actually do the higher mathematics.They give philosophical questions very short shrift. — Wayfarer
The moon is not in a specific state relative to anybody on Earth since it is over one second away and any measurement of it is quite old. That statement is wrong if one presumes counterfactuals. — noAxioms
Precisely! The enigmas of quantum physics are Ontological, not Physical. Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. They offer material analogies (water waves) to symbolically represent unseen causes of observed effects (wave-like behavior in aether-like empty space).It's the nature of that existence which is the philosophical conundrum — Wayfarer
Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. — Gnomon
a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical) — Gnomon
(Susan) Schneider argues that physicalism stands astride a contradiction. On the one hand, the physicalist maintains everything in reality is either a fundamental physical entity or depends upon a fundamental physical entity in its (supervenience) base. On the other hand, the physicalist is committed to the idea that, at least in part, what individuates physical entities are certain mathematical facts. But mathematical facts are best construed as facts about abstracta, and hence the physicalist cannot accommodate them in her ontology. Schneider calls this the "problem of the base".
...can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno
The concepts & language in Explanation, Idealism, and Design may be way over my head. So, I only read the Abstract. But you may be able to make sense of it.Waveforms & wavefunctions are subjective metaphors, not objective things. — Gnomon
Seems to me that these concepts transcend the division between subject and object - which you actually posit here:
a quantum particle is both Real (physical) and Virtual (mental or mathematical) — Gnomon — Wayfarer
Emergence is a Holistic concept, that doesn't make sense from a Reductive perspective, such as Physicalism. Hence, it is sometimes dismissed as anti-science, although Emergence is essential to the 21st century sciences of Systems and Complexity. :smile:...can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno
On my view emergence makes the most sense when used to refer to a naturally occurring (evolutionary) process that began long before language use emerged. — creativesoul
Yes. Everything we know via the five senses is physical. But we know some abstract concepts via the sixth sense of Rational Inference. We typically call sensory knowledge "Facts", and theoretical conclusions "Beliefs". Facts can be proven, but Beliefs can only be argued. :smile:I think an oft missed distinction here is between the idea that "every thing around us is physical" and the broader claim that "all facts can be explained in terms of facts about physical entities." Abstract objects are more of a problem for the second claim. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Emergence is a continuous process that appears to be sudden only because the mind reaches a tipping-point of understanding between an old meaning and a new meaning, — Gnomon
Two things are at play, the mental and the physical. — Mark Nyquist
We can imaging time lines in our brains but we can't physically get out of the present — Mark Nyquist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.