Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system — Corvus

The James Webb telescope findings might be saying you are correct. BB needs correcting but the details themselves don't matter much to philosophy

. If the BB had created the solar system as it is now, then it must be the most unbelievable magic ever created in the universe nothing short of the miracle act of some omnipotent being. But is it — Corvus

Reality itself could be the miracle, God itself could be the miracle.

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system. — Corvus

That’s not a problem with it. The workings are pretty much standard for something with no design or intelligence.

It would have been more like total chaos with debris of the rocks, minerals and burnt out matters scattered and floating around in the space even at this time. You see some of the old gignatic stars exploding when they are dying. It is nothing short of the massive nuclear explosion destroying and burning everything around them. — Corvus

Tell me you don’t understand the theory without telling me you don’t understand it.

So space and time are not separate? And motions come from them? I've speculated on this forum that motion creates time as it moves through space so there is no need for a before the Big Bang being it's creater (motion) moves singularly at the moment of the universe's and time's first motion forward. It seems like something coming from nothing but it's not. The primordial singularity is it's own casuality — Gregory

Your speculations mean nothing at all. Space and time aren’t separate, they exist in tandem. Motion doesn’t come from them; it just happens if things exist.

There is no primordial singularity, the universe has always existed.

One of these is false:

1. Particles cannot influence one another faster than the speed of light (locality)
2. Particles have well defined properties before being measured (realism)

As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism, and the de Broglie–Bohm theory rejects locality. — Michael

I only skimmed the first page of replies, and this seems to be the only answer that succinctly answers the question.

I studied physics at university, but only ever really felt fully comfortable with classical physics. I got the top score in the class on the last quantum mechanics test I took, but it just felt so weird and I never really felt like I mastered it (I never worked past a bachelor's degree).

My understanding of some of the weirdness in quantum mechanics is that quantum particles do not appear to have defined momentum or position prior to being measured. This is not a limitation of our measurements, but a property of the particles themselves.

So, when I hear, "anti-realism", I think of some kind of interpretation like the particle has no real defined traits until observed by a consciousness(or possibly, until interacting with any macroscopic object). At the macroscopic scale, things only appear to be determined because the average behavior of a huge number of random objects is fairly well determined.

I don't really have a dog in the fight, because as I said, I don't feel like an expert. The only thing I can think of is that maybe position and momentum aren't really the fundamental building blocks of existence, but maybe the wave function itself (which describes a probability distribution of position or momentum) is the true existence of the particle. As I understand it, the wave function ought to be well defined at all times.

I have had a similar thought about relativity. It seems so bizarre to me that lengths and mass change due to velocity, and that velocities cannot be added by simple arithmetic (if you throw a ball with V1 on a train at V2, the final velocity is NOT V1 + V2 according to relativity). I would think that if a thing were truly "real", then it would be observed to be the same for all observers. It made me wonder if things like mass, and position are not truly the fundamental building blocks of existence, but are only derived phenomena from something even more fundamental. I couldn't begin to tell you what that is though.

I'm pretty sure physics doesn't really have anything to say about realism, anti-realism, or idealism, but that hasn't stopped folks from trying. — Darkneos

You're right, it's not about the *philosophical* concept of realism, it's a physics concept.

In short, what quantum mechanical experiments, especially Bell's Test, give extremely strong evidence for, is that a classical physics type view of reality is incorrect. That's what "local realism" means.

In classical physics, for any given proerty you could measure, every object in existence has distinct values for that property - all the time, whether you're measuring it or not. Momentum, location, rotational velocity - everything has a distinct value for all measureable properties.

That's local realism, and *that* is what's not true, at least for the things we are generally inclined to think of as 'objects' at the fundamental level ie protons neutrons electrons.

Bell's Theorem demonstrates that you have to give up on at least one of locality or realism. In either words, either you have to choose to believe that causality can be non-local, faster than light, and contradict special relativity, OR you have to believe that measurable properties don't have singular distinct values when not being measured. Or both.

There is a third option, but... we don't talk about the third option.

As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism — Michael

I think the Copenhagen interpretation also rejects locality, no?

-edit, i guess i've always misinterpreted what the copenhagen interpretation is.

↪jgill
Plato suggested momentary collapse — magritte

Would you elaborate, please?

Tell me you don’t understand the theory without telling me you don’t understand it. — Darkneos

What do you not understand on my understanding of the BB?

Problem with the Big Bang theory is, inability for explaining the perfect position, and workings of the matter, space and time in the Solar system. — Corvus


That’s not a problem with it. The workings are pretty much standard for something with no design or intelligence. — Darkneos

Without solid explanation backed by evidence and reasoning, the BB is not much different from the creation of the world story in the Genesis of the Old Testament in terms of its coherence and cogency.

If you accept the BB blindly, you have committed yourself to being an esoteric shaman under the apparel of science.

So, when I hear, "anti-realism", I think of some kind of interpretation like the particle has no real defined traits until observed by a consciousness(or possibly, until interacting with any macroscopic object). At the macroscopic scale, things only appear to be determined because the average behavior of a huge number of random objects is fairly well determined. — Brendan Golledge

The anti-realism is based on a misunderstanding of quantum physics, it still hinges on the notion that consciousness is involved when it's not.

The particles exist but their properties are uncertain, or that they can influence each other from a distance.

But bear in mind the physicists don't use the word realism, that's the public. So this doesn't affect our day to day like people think it does, and at the moment it's still uncertain what it actually means.

So the links in my first post I learned can just be ignored as the people in them don't know what it means, not even the guys who discovered this do.

Without solid explanation backed by evidence and reasoning, the BB is not much different from the creation of the world story in the Genesis of the Old Testament in terms of its coherence and cogency. — Corvus

More ignorance on the Big Bang and what it means. To compare it to Genesis is the height of stupid.

What do you not understand on my understanding of the BB? — Corvus

It's so ignorant that I cannot fathom it.

Is it? It's sometimes claimed that classical mechanics "works perfectly" for medium sized objects, and that problems only show up at very large or very small scales.

Except it doesn't. Right from the beginning gravity was an occult force acting at a distance, which in turn had to make "natural laws" active casual agents in the world "shoving the planets into their places like schoolboys" as Hegel puts it. The deficiencies of such a model of causation are well highlighted by Hume. Then electromagnetism added another occult force that didn't fit into the "everything is little billiard balls model." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Wasn't that just philosophical ambivalence or ignorance however? A lack of creativity on the possible analogue modeling that can be done on such subject matters because a 'billard ball model' of the universe was some strange dogma of the Classical ages?

Especially since admitting to action at a distance to gravity was not so much a grand philosophical conclusion but an implicit admittance that they creatively gave up or something similar to Newton's, "Hypotheses non fingo."

Nor could/has the mechanistic model, where the billiard ball is the paradigmatic example of all physical interactions, been able to explain life or consciousness, nor was it able to offer up theories of self-organization, except via a deficient view of organisms as simply intricate "clockwork." Nor, in it's classical forms, can it incorporate information and the successes of information theory. We have suggested a long hangover of "Cartesian anxiety," because the classical model required early modern thinkers to excise consciousness, ideas, and freedom from the "physical realm." — Count Timothy von Icarus

. . . or they just needed new analogies and metaphors which could still retain the age old or common folk intuitions we all possess.

There are tons of other rigid body analogies one could make regarding how we think creatively about the black box that is nature which doesn't have to pay lip service to Newton. Such as analogies to fluids, solids, changes of state of materials, computational analogies, balls & springs, etc.

Further, this mental or philosophical anguish over doing away with 'freedom' or consciousness with such useful fantasy is utterly misplaced. As if re-defining the word living to not include viruses suddenly vanishes them out of existence or implies they pose no medical risk that pragmatically minded medical professionals have to contend with.

It's all semantics. If you desired to create an ontological category that included mental thoughts among physical objects the same as the chair I'm sitting in while I'm writing this you've then technically changed nothing. They may both be physical objects by definition but they still have to remain in intuitively obvious or distinct sub-categories now. Call one ghostly physical objects and the other tangible physical objects or something.

I think the "anti-metaphysical movement's" greatest success has been to keep us stuck, frozen with a defunct 19th century metaphysics as the default, such that it becomes "common sense," to most through our education system. But surely it is cannot be "common sense" in any overarching sense, since it differs dramatically from the more organic-focused physics that dominated for two millennia prior to the creation of the classical model. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The problem with actually making this more 'Mainstream' is that it has to incorporate itself into a successful economical or result based enterprise in manipulating nature for our ends. This I find difficult given the overly flowery or poetic language that 'pro-metaphysicalist' thinkers could be seen to fall prey to making those adherents of the current establishment lose their minds waiting for practical results of such thinking.

Not sure I agree. Someone might only think that because there is no consensus on quantum interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily mean a reasonable one cannot be found eventually and ways of visualizing it. — Apustimelogist

There are already ways of doing so. Documentaries and introductory textbooks make use of billiard balls moving in the void, vague fluid like depictions of collapsing wavefunctions, fluid animations to depict fields, or ball & spring models to talk about field excitations.

Don't wait for nature to approve your visualization as if nature ever will or that there will be consensus on said 'correct' visualization. You create whatever intuitive picture to talk about nature however you see fit for whatever reason. Nature is a black box and quibbling over the right visualization seems to forget that we have the all the freedom to come up with whatever we want for whatever purposes because its hidden from us.

Whether that be for aesthetic purposes, computational ones, symbolic understanding, practical applications, etc.

More ignorance on the Big Bang and what it means. To compare it to Genesis is the height of stupid. — Darkneos

Instead of trying to give out explanations or arguments, just keep saying it is stupid, is not philosophy.

My point was not a comparison between the BB and Genesis. It was a metaphor to describe your attitude of blindly accepting the BB as the absolute truth, which is not much different from believing Genesis creation of the world. You are not even understanding a simple English sentence.

My point was not a comparison between the BB and Genesis. It was a metaphor to describe your attitude of blindly accepting the BB as the absolute truth, which is not much different from believing Genesis creation of the world. You are not even understanding a simple English sentence. — Corvus

And this, again, is just ignorance of the subject matter. It doesn't really merit much more engagement than that.