Except those books or lectures don't actually usually address the interpretational issue regarding it. Usually, they actually feel its irrelevant to the mathematical formulation and my textbook from the university makes that expressly clear where the math ends to where the uncertain philosophy begins.Way to illustrate my point behind a lot of the misunderstandings behind QM. — Darkneos
You know, given process philosophy is supposed to be a more faithful interpretation of QM by its adherents its actually really tangential but close to it.But again none of this is relevant nor answers my questions so you’ve effectively said nothing. I don’t even know how this got to quantum physics… — Darkneos
This is why I often take the Buddhas stance on metaphysics in this; it doesn’t matter. Also why I don’t partake in philosophy often.
Just reposting this. For reasons.I just ask people who know better, I don’t have the time or money for a degree. — Darkneos
Then challenge yourself to actually figure it out. That way these conversations can go way easier.Well there is a “right way” but I’m not versed enough in it to know. — Darkneos
Why should that stop physicists from proposing them as lacking intuitive physical properties if they are as un-fathomable as you say they are?Well not really. The level of atoms is so small that most people couldn’t fathom it or what it means, so when you learn atoms are mostly empty space it doesn’t mean much. — Darkneos
Okay. . . so why are physicists so upset about these 'misinterpretations' if they aren't meant to tell us what it's 'really' made of?It’s hard to say one way or the other because at that level it’s just math. Anything philosophical is up in the air. Field theory is just a mathematical model, physics doesn’t tell us what reality is made of, it just uses math to predict it. — Darkneos
To me its completely irrelevant. Whether process philosophy or static object substance philosophies only emphasize different aspects of the same thing.Well it’s more like I’m not sure if the people talking to me really understand it. When I’m asking Punos they just insist that it’s not cold or dehumanizing but can’t really explain why while I have. — Darkneos
In a trivial sense there are tons of verbs that are also nouns. Then there are many examples of metaphorical/analogical speech that give things which are abstract a concrete element to them.Not in my experience. Can you give an example? — Darkneos
I get that. . . you won't stop talking about why this is all for nought because of those physicists you have previously read. Specifics as to why seem to be lacking on your part I have to say.All I know is from what other physicists have told me, that a lot of people misunderstand quantum field theory and think it means what it doesn’t. — Darkneos
Solidity is the ability to not be interpenetrated so to allow for interpenetration is what I would not take as them possessing solidity as intrinsic to them.But as for the bosons I don’t think that means they aren’t solid it just means quantum mechanics is weirder than we thought. But from the answers I’m reading, YES it does mean there are multiple collocated particles. — Darkneos
Oh, okay. . . so as long as the math is correct we can just make up whatever. . . right? Or is there some proper methodology as to how to do this absent the math?Everything you’ve mentioned are still particles, it’s just that at the level things are weird. — Darkneos
What is the actual problem. Its just a different language choice.Like…to be blunt: what does this mean and why should one care? You haven’t answered this, just saying that it contradicts current materialist understanding, which tells me nothing. You also didn’t answer my initial questions — Darkneos
Solidity whether it be 'from fields' or 'particles' or 'matter' is always going to make itself seem illusory and nonexistent if you think that the reason we don't fall through the floor is not because there is no empty space in objects but because of their repulsive interactions. Regardless of what analogical language you use whether its 'water waves' or 'billiard balls' or 'balls & springs'. Solidity becomes something that may not be a part of the micro-constituent parts of the world around us at least as proposed.Well from what I understand it’s particles and matter. The “everything is made of fields” thing is a misunderstanding of it, it makes people foolishly think there is nothing solid. — Darkneos
It's a common enough notion. It's linguistics such as book linked or here, by psychologists, and of course philosophers who really just point out this usage while choosing not to partake in it such as process philosophers. Its a prominent and cross-cultural notion of time that in fact even changes culture to culture apparently.I don’t think time can be described through space, but I am open to hearing why you think this. — Bob Ross
It's irrelevant to whether its realism or anti-realism. Either you are committed to a problem of reification or ascribing incorrect language/metaphysics/physical terms to talk about something which is itself not physical therefore more a language error regarding a mixing of categories or an ontological category mistake.1. This is only a reification fallacy if anti-realism with respect to the topic is true. E.g., the number 2 is not real IFF mathematical anti-realism is true; and same with love. — Bob Ross
You'd need to actually make explicit the kinds of metaphors/language you are using regarding emergentism so as to not make this decay immediately into reductionism.2. Assuming things like, e.g., love are not real but exist as emergent-phenomenal processes of our organism, these still have parts. E.g., love is a feeling of strong intimacy, attraction, etc. for another and is composed, at a minimum, of a strong connection between a donor and recipient and all which is subject to time (viz., loving through time). — Bob Ross
Is that because you want them to be substances or is that only a lazy choice of language that talks about them in substantial manners? Clearly, that isn't the only language one can use unless you want to argue such a point nor would it have them remain true independent substances but something new language is required for (emergentism) or a completely new category with incommensurable language to accompany it.3. When I was talking about space and time as substances, I meant it in the realist sense; so that is not a reification fallacy. I was speaking of what it would look like if one believes they are substances. — Bob Ross
Just as, in particle physics, the technique of observation modifies what is observed, philosophic expression runs the serious risk of altering what is expressed because the distortion which the medium introduces into the message.
This is to say, therefore, that every proposition implies a metaphysics, that syntax, grammatical structure, and the like are disguised metaphysical assertions. Granted: the metaphysics is naive, explicated, and uncriticized; but it is nevertheless a metaphysics. Until that metaphysics is explicated, no proposition can be fully determinate. But the explication can be done only propositionally-and the vicious circle closes, leaving language by its very nature indeterminate, and a precise metaphysical language impossible. The philosopher must therefore maintain a thoroughgoing distrust of any linguistic formulation.
Again, there you are not giving any information on the kind of language you use and whether it could influencing your conception.Extension and temporality are pure intuitions. We get them from our experience of the world; or more accurately they are the forms of our experience.
You are asking of me, e.g., what does it mean to exist? Well, its a pure intuition. There’s nothing more I can say; nor can you. — Bob Ross
If you are to separate conceptual space/time from the understanding you need to understand that split but before that you need to state what metaphors you use. Which is why analogue models in physics have interpretation conditions on what things matter (positive part of the analogy), what things are irrelevant (neutral analogy), and what things intentionally mislead/misconstrue (negative analogy).We might be able to say some things about how space and time behave scientifically; but not what they are themselves. Space and time are the a priori intuitions of the sensory data (manifold) of our outer and (some of our) inner senses; and there may be a space and time akin to these a priori modes of intuition which may or may not behave similarly (e.g., Einstein’s special relativity). Our brain represents things which occur in a multiplicity as in space (whether that be material [e.g., my hand] or immaterial [e.g., the feeling of pain in my hand]); and it represents things which change in time (which may or may not include space—e.g., thinking). It is impossible for me to speak of anything without referencing spatiality and temporality because they are pure intuitions a priori in our brains—viz., they are so integral to the human understanding—but it is important to distinguish space and time proper (in the sense of the forms of the understanding) from conceptual space and time: the latter can be used to talk analogically about things which may not be in the former (e.g., Platonic forms, God, a non-spatiotemporal “particle”, etc.). — Bob Ross
You literally cannot describe space and time without using them in language. That’s a waste of time to try and avoid. — Bob Ross
What “substance metaphor”??? — Bob Ross
No, it casts doubt on the concept itself having any real counter part as I would presume that philosophy doesn't always have to accept that when something is conceptually possible that it is therefore metaphysically possible or physically possible.That’s called in inductive case against an absolutely simple being; and it holds no weight against the argument from composition because it demonstrates the need for its existence. Your argument only works as a probabilistic-style argument IF we have no good reasons to believe a simple being exists. All you are saying is “well, we haven’t had any good reasons to believe there are black swans, so we shouldn’t”. Ok. But now we know there are black swans…. — Bob Ross
What is extended and what is temporal?What part of space and time being extension and temporality is hard for you to understand? If there's specific concepts of space and time that would be immune to the OP, then please feel free to bring them up: I don't see any. — Bob Ross
Outside is spatialized language which I don't choose to indulge in so I don't understand what you mean. Use different language. I don't accept it.You can go the Einsteinien, Kantian, or literally any other route and it will not matter for the OP since we are talking about ontological parts which could be outside of space and time. — Bob Ross
Can I bump my foot up against it? I can't. . . then it's not exactly material in the traditional sense of the word. This was well versed and known far before my birth.The OP doesn't deny time is real. We use time daily. But when it asks does time exist, it means does it exist as a physical entity in the universe? Space exists in the universe. — Corvus
. . . and yet people have constructed philosophies that don't make use of what you typically call 'space' and things turn out just fine. Don't confuse or define space as 'what is needed for things to exist' otherwise its rather uninteresting and tautological why you think it's needed. Then the word 'space' is just a substitute word for "whatever grounds all physical things".Without space, nothing can exist. But space itself is invisible. Could we say something exists, when something is not visible, has no mass and no energy? — Corvus
You're asking the wrong questions. What concepts do WE think are related to it? Of these which can we diminish or rid ourselves of and still get to keep the majority of our time-intuitions?Time has similar properties. It is not visible, not sensible to our senses as an entity. So where is it coming from? When the OP asks does it exist? It means where is it coming from? — Corvus
Presentists who use non-spatialized language to talk about time with metaphors that liken it closer to our lived experience would agree as well.The nature of time is an interesting topic, because there are many folks talking about time travel. If time is some sort of shared mental state of humans, then any talk of time travel would be a fantasy. — Corvus
As far as they may be needed for simple ordinary cognition; they are 'real' to me.Does it imply that God, souls and Thing-in-itself are also real as time? Or are they just figments of human imagination? If time is real, why aren't the other abstract concepts real? — Corvus
Nor would a philosopher ever figure it out either if they don't understand, just as many physicists, the difference between talking about something in reference to other things and bare un-interesting direct reference.The idea of it being magical just begs the question; but it is worth noting that your view depends on physical processes for beings to apprehend the forms of things, and we still to this day have no clue how that would work in the brain. — Bob Ross
We have reason, which is distinct from AI, and we have every reason to believe it could never be facilitated by the brain. Why? Because reason abstracts the universal of a particular—not just pattern-matching given the universal like AI—and this seems to posit yet another hard problem for physicalists: how could an brain processes abstract out the universal from a particular—which is necessarily to go beyond the given data of the particular itself—when nothing about the particular itself entails its universal? AI, on the other hand, is given concepts (universals) and then trained to pattern-match particulars: our minds do not do that. — Bob Ross
I don't want to be that kind of person but what does it mean to say it does or doesn't exist? Are you talking about existence as coincident with physicality/material constitution then lots of concepts have more to do with generalizations of real things than a particular real thing that it designates.Time doesn't exist. — Corvus
Well, what does it mean to say certain objects exist and why space?Only space and objects exist. — Corvus
Lots of things lack our ability to imagine them but that doesn't make them unintelligible or nonreferential.When I try to perceive time, the perception is empty. — Corvus
Definitions are built on either axiomatic fiat symbolic reference or reference, through symbolization or metaphor, to other base notions/concepts/experiences.I already explained why blue cannot be properly defined. Remember Mary’s room thought experiment? Are you just ignoring that? — Bob Ross
I know, that wasn't the point as I was just pointing out how philosophical skeptics can miss the point of how normal individuals conduct themselves choosing to devolve into intellectual labyrinths in an attempt to shut down the discussion. The token pessimistic skeptic may ask, "What is the point of discussing this or that if there is no way of knowing?"Nothing I said is an argument from skepticism. — Bob Ross
. . . and I say it doesn't make sense to ask how many parts a number has so it wouldn't make sense to ask what an entity devoid of spatiality would even be to possess parts yet not be extended.My argument doesn’t care if you are a realist or not about space and time, ironically, as there will still be ontological parts to things even if they are not in space or time; so I say take your pick! **shrug** (: — Bob Ross
Which doesn't make a difference between what others have deemed the 'spatial extension' notion of physicality. . . which is different from the spatial separation of any two physical things. . . which is different from spatial location/place. . . which is different from fundamental physical action at a distance interactions. These are all different notions.I already described them sufficiently for purposes of the OP. Space is extension; time is temporality. — Bob Ross
Anyone can give a definition of blue its only you who has a problem with certain definitions with blue and may be unhappy with any of them so he throws his hands up in the air saying, "Well you just can't!"I don’t understand what you are really objecting to. I originally was noting that blueness cannot be defined just like temporality and space. You objected that we can and should give proper definitions of these; and I used blueness as an analogous example. You now are agreeing with me that blueness cannot be defined—right? It seems like you are noting that we can describe it to some extent—I wasn’t disputing that. — Bob Ross
That wasn't a scientific definition of blue. I was just listing what things pop to mind and therefore are related to what people understand the concept of blue as related to it.A scientific definition of blueness is not a valid definition of blueness. I does not account for the phenomenal property of blue: see Mary’s room thought experiment. — Bob Ross
Could you not be so vague?They refer to extension and temporality respectively: they are pure intuitions—there is no way to define that properly, no different than defining the color blue. — Bob Ross
Its an opinion of mine, sure.This is a baseless assertion. — Bob Ross
Define wisdom. . .Philosophy is the objective study of wisdom. — Bob Ross
That is because you fail to actually define 'spatial' or 'temporal' so that is part of the problem.Moreover, yes, I do not see any contradiction with the idea that a composed being which is spatiotemporal must be infinitely divisible and yet ontologically be comprised ultimately by one singular non-spatiotemporal thing. — Bob Ross
As regards 'i', that is how all of philosophy including your own is constructed. You make something up and see if it makes intuitive sense or if its unintuitive how might you still intuitively motivate it.Think about it: how can a being which has no parts exist as a particular? That would imply that it has some property which is distinct from any others of that particular; and this implies it has parts (for no absolutely simple thing can have properties proper—since it is literally one thing with no distinctions). What I am trying to get you to see, is that this philosophically makes no sense even if we posit it for the sake of science—just as much as the square root of -1 is not a real number but we use it in math anyways. — Bob Ross
This is another thing lacking from your posts or the OP which is any clarification on the proper metaphysical/philosophical approach to using metaphor and analogy.That is why God is attributed—or more accurately just is—these properties analogically. I am not claiming that God has, e.g., a will the same as ours.
You seem to be doing a literal equivocation between the usages of these properties when the OP is outlining analogical equivocation—nothing more. — Bob Ross
. . . but the notions of space and time factor into the identity of things and whether the notion of a 'part' is even coherent at all may depend entirely on the definitions one gives to space or to time.Like I said before, the argument is on ontological parts. That could be in time and space or not; it doesn't matter to me. Some of the OP would have to be adjusted though, but I think most people are realists about space and time (so I'll leave it how it is). — Bob Ross
It seems however to depend on your metaphysics regarding spacetime, the substantivalism/relationism discussion, as well as the ontological nature of properties so let us discuss that as it seems significant.I didn’t make an argument from change: I didn’t import that part of Thomistic metaphysics. My argument is from the contingency relations of composition. — Bob Ross
I don’t see how I’m committing a fallacy. God is real, but non-spatiotemporal. You are saying here that anyone who believes in anything non-spatiotemporal that relates to spatiotemporal things is a reification fallacy. So, I guess time itself existing is a reification fallacy? — Bob Ross
Yes, they are separated by something that isn't stuff. It's not-stuff. It's the void. It's an old and well respected idea because the only response to it is to balloon ones ontology by adding in 'space' which is as metaphysical as platonic entities or insert matter between the matter we can see which may be entirely undetectable/unknowable.That's patently incoherent. You just said that two things exist separately in non-existence (i.e., a void). — Bob Ross
Depending on your conception regarding spacetime realism/anti-realism that would then make the argument dependent on spacetime realism or a form of platonic relationism so that these 'spatiotemporal' properties are 'things' that are ontologically real 'parts' of them. Not mere linguistic devices or fictions.The spatiotemporal properties are properties of the part; so it does hold that we distinguish them based off of the parts even if they are identical notwithstanding their occupation of space or place in time. — Bob Ross
9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.
10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist. — Bob Ross
. . . checks out in my head.
I agree with your suspicion here that it really isn't as astoundingly world changing as its made out to be and contains some connection in form to other similar discussions surrounding the base assumptions we make along with their implications on local causation.I feel like every new discovery in the field gets muddled by thousands of people who try to run away with it and draw conclusions that it's not saying. 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. I just want to know what it means, because from the little I was able to parse it doesn't seem that disastrous — Darkneos
So are you saying that what I linked to has no value? Are you going to submit a paper or opinion piece on your blog about the wasted efforts of each of those authors?They haven't discussed it to death, in fact they can't settle on anything. You're just making noise because what you offer has no real value to science, not anymore anyway. — Darkneos
However, the point of science is to build on critical thinking skills and the peer review process is built to be argumentative as well as critical for a reason. Not to 'avoid arguments' because its. . . what. . . inconvenient.You don't need cited sources when it comes to philosophy, it's all just arguments. — Darkneos
When I engage in science is it the case that there will be no reference to analogies or metaphorical speech regarding interpretations of any theory? Is there fully NO experimental underdetermination and if I wait long enough for the next experiment without inconsistency of debate will this always resolve to the correct interpretation?Again, engage with the science, not this philosophy of science noise where they can't agree on anything. — Darkneos
If it doesn't matter what philosophy thinks on it then it also doesn't matter what interpretation you bring to the table or what words you put to the math. All we would need is a mathematical model and a collection of operational/instrumental practices that allow us to 'manipulate' the world or 'act on sorta' but with all that other interpretational fat shaved away.It's pretty much done every day, you don't really need philosophy to do that. The fact it pans out and leads to discoveries that we can manipulate and act on sorta implies it doesn't matter what philosophy thinks about it. — Darkneos
According to what?Well that’s what they are. It’s not a matter of belief. That’s is until they interact with anything, at which point they settle. — Darkneos
Explain to me why the word analogy doesn't fit? With a cited source?I have read some but to use the word analogy means you don’t understand what is going on and what they’re doing. — Darkneos
I've repeatedly made the distinction between the mathematical models one uses to quantify observations or make predictions which is CONSTRASTED with the actual observational statements made or observations performed.You think the math is the pure data and it has to be translated to language and that’s just not what’s going on. — Darkneos
. . . and your trying so hard to not have a discussion about things that confuse laymen all the time. I see tons of questions by such people all the time asking if the statements made by popular pop-cultural depictions of scientific facts or by actual scientists themselves are 'true' or 'mere language games/metaphor'.Again you keep trying to make philosophy valid where it isn’t. This is just noise. — Darkneos
You stated that scientist did not do anything related to what I was talking about which implied they worked with nothing involving analogies or metaphors. I showed that this was wrong simply by the fact modern scientists construct and see worth in analogue modeling. It's a common ancient practice. It's literal basic modeling!I know you didn’t really these, you literally quoted the first paragraph. Not only do you not understand what science is doing but you link evidence to the contrary, nice work. — Darkneos
Are you saying there is un-observational even in principle speculation to be had here? *gasp*The whole "measurement problem" seems like a hoax. If it only settles when we look we have no idea what it would be (or is) if we didn't — Gregory
Ergo, it may be rather too strong to rely on knowledge claims regarding whether we will immediately act or most probably will to then dictate our decision to entertain a certain form of self-reflection in whatever manner we deem fit.It seems a little deterministic to say that our moral sensibilities will always give way to action such that all, or a good many, of our personal moral convictions will be manifest. — ToothyMaw
Yes, that is what I'm getting from what @T Clark has said which seems to imply some rational decision making to be had probably involving a weighing of certainties and probabilities with respect to future possible actions.Okay, it sounds like you are asking if we ought to choose a disconnected moral quandary and self-reflect about how we feel about it now based on the fact that it might be possible that the self-reflection could be productive in the future. Is that accurate? — ToothyMaw
Why indulge in moral conundrums or fictional scenarios if they will remain as reality separated as they are?If so, why wouldn't we just allow these things to arise naturally? Why subject yourself to that kind of thing if you don't even know a good reason for doing it (yet)? — ToothyMaw
Some would desire to take on that burden while others could be more pragmatically minded and therefore piece-meal about what they choose. While others will see it in a more pessimistic light seeing it as altogether in all cases a pointless endeavor to consider possibilities and not actualities.I suppose one could make the case that doing this would lean towards guiding one's actions ethically in general, but that sounds like quite a burden to be forcing oneself to be reflecting that seriously on tons of things that one might not even be able to affect at the moment (or ever). — ToothyMaw
However, we do actually value ourselves and our self-worth based on the moral maturity or emotional connections one is able to make. Even in fictional scenarios or highly restricted removed parts of our great social environment.In the world as I understand it, moral judgments are created by humans, so it makes sense to talk about their value. Emotions, on the other hand, are our body's, primarily biological, reactions to events. It does not really make sense to talk about their value. It's just what we do. — T Clark
Well, some sociologists and psychologists seems to beat a dead horse regarding the modern age that has given rise to extensive desensitization. From video games, to modern entertainment, popular news channels, and the greatest atrocities being accessible from YouTube. That or a quick TOR venture deep enough to find a videos from active war zones or un-blurred beheadings. This emotional separation is what the @Questioner brings up.Yes, this is true. I don't see why that is a concern. — T Clark
I think you are almost entirely right in this more traditional normative assessment. Regardless, I agree with the OP that it is still true that some amount of moral outrage, even experienced disconnected from events one can influence, be it because of temporal or other factors, can prompt self-reflection that might make one more moral or morally driven. This is kind of a gray area because you are right: it carries serious negative health implications. But it might make one a better moral agent to experience the emotions very strongly at least some of the time. I think that this is as close as the OP's argument can get to being grounded intuitively and rationally. That is, unless, or until, substantivalism offers more insight. — ToothyMaw
When I say "emotional ought" I refer to the act of stimulating one's emotions in a healthy way to encourage self-reflection, which itself should entail some concrete actions. Nonetheless, self-reflection is an action anyways, so it is a non-issue. — ToothyMaw
Which is what the rest of this discussion should concern. The ontology or origin of emotional states is what I'd consider entirely irrelevant.Emotions themselves are, as I wrote, our natural bodily and mental reactions to events and are, mostly, outside of our direct control. On the other hand, viewing and examining those emotions, which you propose, are human actions and judgments. — T Clark
So what worth are emotional reactions then in the absence of objective actions?What value does moral disapproval have if you aren't going to act? Answer - none. It doesn't mean anything. As ToothyMaw notes, it's emotional reactions that lead us to action. Not so much the ones you mention but empathy, compassion, kindness, a sense of responsibility. Moral outrage is an easy way to act as if you've done something without actually having to do anything. — T Clark
It seem a bit vague what it means for them to 'entail' actions as I would presume that some part of the totality of our experiences under guards most actions either out of explicit acknowledgement or implicit thought free reactionary instincts. Even if those are sometimes so far removed temporally from when they finally make themselves actionably present.But it is worth noting that the OP is also saying that moral outrage or associated mental events are meaningful insofar as they provide a motive to self-reflect. But I don't think those self-reflections matter too much if they don't themselves entail actions, and I'm pretty certain the OP would agree with that too. — ToothyMaw
Your acting as if there is some clear god given manner in which you translate the math into ordinary language. The fact that we do disagree on how to do so means that it isn't so much a revelation to a scientist as much as it is a long drawn out unending debate that has numerous subjective threads.Not language games, just that translating the math is hard because quantum physics isn't exactly intuitive. — Darkneos
What you just stated is a description NOT an explanation nor is it how this would be explained regardless.No they're not. We have data and then determine what that data means. If you put sodium in water and it explodes you can reason that sodium and water create that reaction. — Darkneos
Then give me an example of how a scientist explains something using quantum mechanics that doesn't make use of math, descriptive language, or uses any form of metaphor/analogical speech. Go ahead, I'm waiting.Not language games and not what they do. — Darkneos
Is the Rutherford model of an atom meant to be taken as how atoms actually are or merely a useful fiction?Not fiction. — Darkneos
Making it up!!Easily, we do it every day. Math is part of how we get the result but that's not all physics is. You're just making shit up that scientists don't do to try to justify that philosophy has some use when it's long been obsolete in navigating the world apart from ethics and morality. — Darkneos
Reasoning by analogies is a natural inclination of the human brain that operates by associating new and unknown situations to a series of known and previously encountered situations. On the basis of these analogies, judgements and decisions are made: associations are the building blocks for predictive thought. It is therefore natural that analogue models are also a constant presence in the world of physics and an invaluable instrument in the progress of our knowledge of the world that surrounds us. It would be impossible to give a comprehensive list of these analogue models but a few recent and relevant examples are optical waveguide analogues of the relativistic Dirac equation (linking optics with quantum mechanics), photonic crystals (linking optical wave propagation in periodic lattices with electron propagation in metals) or, at a more profound level, the Anti-de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory correspondence (linking quantum systems in D dimensions to gravitational systems in D+1dimensions). The purpose of this book is to give a general overview and introduction to the world of analogue gravity: the simulation or recreation of certain phenomena that are usually attributed to the effects of gravity but that can be shown to naturally emerge in a variety of systems ranging from flowing liquids to nonlinear optics.
To what, it adds up to what? That the mathematical model is predictively successful?No it doesn’t. Like I said we have data and it adds up. — Darkneos
So you are trying to find the right terms to interpret a mathematical model. Language games again.Wrong again. It’s not really the terms it’s just trying to translate the math to people speak. — Darkneos
These mental tools do not need a degree for someone to fully analyze it or get it on first viewing.It does, but in the case of QM you need a degree to understand it. — Darkneos
Arrogance is showing a good peak here rivaling mine. Perhaps I should be the adult in the conversation here.I don't really care because half of what they have to say isn't worth listening to. — Darkneos
What are you even disagreeing with me on?Or none of that. The whole "world beyond our senses" is just noise from philosophy. What we see is the world and based on the data we have there is no reason to think otherwise. Our senses are fallible but that's what science is for, and it have often shown our intuitions to be mistaken. — Darkneos
If its not about manipulating nature, constructing predictive mathematical models, or making new observations then what else?no that's not what physics is about. — Darkneos
Yes, because you don't need to consider any questions or speculation about how the world actually works or what language one should use to talk about it if all you have is a 'shut up and calculate' mentality.We have non-philosophical science, it's done every day. — Darkneos
Oh we know how nature works we just can't put into the right words. . . so a language choice is required. . . its as if we need to have a discussion about what terms we use. . . you know. . . indulge in a language game of sorts.Interpretations aren't philosophical dumbass. We know how nature works based on the math and data, trying to put that into regular speak is the issue. — Darkneos
Neither does science then if the problem is that IT DOESN'T have any coherent picture or as you put it, '. . . regular speak is the issue.'Results and data...I would think that's obvious. Philosophy ultimately has nothing at the end of the day. I get that people suggest it has value here and how it teaches you how to think but all my experience with it just shows how pointless 80% of the discussions in it are.
The most worthless question I've heard is "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Who cares? There is something and that's all that matters. — Darkneos
Define understanding here as I'm curious if you have in mind what scientific philosophers have in mind when they say that we 'understand' something.Well no, philosophy isn’t required and just kicks up the data since philosophers don’t understand what’s going on. — Darkneos
In what sense?Stuff like this just reinforces my stance that science has advanced beyond philosophy in terms of explanations and knowledge. — Darkneos
How does a mathematical model 'explain' the data? Given physics specifically is really only concerned with mathematically modeling nature and manipulating it to pre-desired or predicted outcomes.Science is consensus, that’s how it works. It makes perfect sense which is right or wrong because one explains the data and the other doesn’t. — Darkneos
If its unknown then what is it that science has over philosophy?The problem with QM is that while the math and data are iron clad trying to explain it is tough. New discoveries might prove some interpretations and invalidate others, but until then it’s largely unknown. — Darkneos
How does a mathematical model which accords with observations get an interpretation?But it’s not a purely subjective affair, that’s just stupid. It’s not up to you because you know nothing about the subject. Like…this has to be the dumbest take I’ve heard on the subject so far. — Darkneos
If it provides both actionable will and direction then I'd presume it forms a core component of the way in which one views the moral strength/value of themselves.I kind of see the emotional part of it as providing an impetus to act and giving us a bearing kind of like a compass; we know there are many ways of acting, and that some are more correct than others, but without a sense of emotional growth or stimulation we are largely rudderless because it is the emotions that give the narratives that guide us salience in a human sense. So yes, I do think this process of becoming jaded often dilutes moral judgments/sensibilities. — ToothyMaw
Is mere exposure enough?I would say that sometimes it is a good thing to expose oneself to the realities of others to remind oneself just how awful or good things can be, but I don't think that an entity needs their emotions to be in flux all of the time to be truly moral. Not that you are saying that last part, but I have to qualify what I'm saying. Whether or not there is an emotional, moral ought compelling us to do such a thing is questionable, but I think an argument could be made. — ToothyMaw
Pictures of the world typically do not end up being testable or falsifiable. They are constructed after the fact to fit to the facts themselves as we intuitively see fit.I don't understand what you mean. We are talking about science here. The whole point is to construct a picture if the world that makes sense and fits to what we observe. — Apustimelogist
Those other fields typically aren't complete black boxes.Quantum interpretation is as fair game as any other part of science or knowledge in general. Are you going to make this comment to other fields of science? I doubt it. — Apustimelogist
There doesn't have to be a consensus because it makes no sense to ask which is 'right' or 'wrong'. Nor does it make sense to ask which is 'closer' to how it really is.Well yes but I mean in terms of a consensus on some kind of interpretation which makes sense to people within a scientific context. — 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.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
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
. . . or they just needed new analogies and metaphors which could still retain the age old or common folk intuitions we all possess.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
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.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
Isn't this just a modern rendition of the notions that the early pre-Socratic atomists had?The basic idea is that particles move along trajectories where at any time they are always in a definite position. The caveat is that their motion is kind of random. Closest analogy in everyday experience is probably something like a dust particle bobbing about in a glass of water, the water molecules pushing it one direction then another. — Apustimelogist
I would say it doesn't achieve that at all. Retro-causality or 'temporal action at a distance' is a part of a long history of taking the spatialized language we use to talk about time way beyond their metaphorical/psychological origins.It's also a bit strange because Hossenfelder wants "common sense" interpretations of QM, and retro-causality actually achieves this by making the world both local and deterministic. — Count Timothy von Icarus