There were lots of basic topics covered, down to interpretations of time near the bottom, but I didn’t see quantum interpretations mentioned at all, which requires probably a whole separate course — noAxioms

Might be hard to find a faculty member of a philosophy department capable of this. :cool:

I would say any university with a good philosophy program, and adequate courses in metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Amongst the myriad of courses in numerology, astrology, meditation, noetic sciences,chakras, auras, divination, spiritualism, angels, etc., I found an introductory course at Oxford that looks legit:

Introduction: what is metaphysics? An introduction to the distinctive character of metaphysical questions: the history of the idea of metaphysics, understood as the most general and abstract inquiry into the nature of reality.

Existence: what is existence? What is it to exist? People disagree about what exists; but how can we understand this disagreement? Are there things which do not exist?

Universals and particulars: in addition to particular objects and events, our world seems to contain general or universal features of things, like their colours and their shapes. Is this an illusion or does the world really contain such features, known as 'universals'?

Realism and idealism: does the world exist independently of our minds? Realism is the view that it does; idealism is the view that reality is mind-dependent. Are any features of the world mind-dependent?

The freedom of the will: we think our actions and decisions are free, or up to us, but this idea seems to be in conflict with the apparent fact that everything which happens is determined by what happens before it (this is known as 'determinism'). Does determinism imply that free will is an illusion, or are free will and determinism really compatible after all?

Cause and effect: what is it for one thing to cause another, or to make something happen? Is there more to cause and effect than the mere regularity of things happening after one another? If so, is causation a physical process, or is mental causation also possible?

The nature of time and space: what are time and space? Is there no more to them than the temporal and spatial relations which hold between events and objects? Or should they rather be conceived as the 'containers' in which things exist and events occur? Are the past, present and future genuine aspects of reality, or are they merely 'subjective' features of our experience of time?

We strongly recommend that you try to find a little time each week to engage in the online conversations (at times that are convenient to you) as the forums are an integral, and very rewarding, part of the course and the online learning experience.

I encourage any Q-physicist reading this post to consider enrolling in this course. :cool:

(or simply pull up all the threads on TPF relating to these subjects. Much profound stuff therein.)

You're dealing with probabilities in the quantum world, not deterministics. The probability of the cat being alive might be .3 and dead .7. Doesn't mean the poor cat hovers between life and death. It may be alive.

Wikipedia:

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

I grew up as an only child and I did feel that was hard. It is also probably why I am better able to do things by myself as I was got used to it — Jack Cummins

Me too, but I did not feel it was hard. I learned to talk to myself, and made friends with that inner companion. I still do when I'm alone, and my inner friend supplies me with mathematical ideas. Also, I became a solo climber and relished being entirely alone high up on a piece of granite.

But living alone is another dimension, and I truly appreciate my companion, my wife.

Metaphysics consists of different principles which physicists have not been trained in. — Metaphysician Undercover

Suppose I am a typical Q-physicist, following the mathematics but paying little attention to authorities in my subject babbling woo about interpretations. Please elucidate the training program in metaphysics I would need to complete to be considered competent in metaphysics. Be specific as possible.

Would I need to attend the University of Metaphysics? Would a bachelor's degree be sufficient?

↪jgill
Well then what explains all the Sturm und Drang mon ami?! Why the hullabaloo if the cat is simply dead OR alive? — Agent Smith

No one really knows exactly whats going on at the quantum level. If you simply follow the math and avoid all this metaphysical stuff, you do well at predicting. Apparently. Once the science popularizers get into the game, however, you see the Earth in basketball nets. Best to let the Q-physicists argue it out. My opinion. FWIW. Not much.

I thought that superposition is a fact and not just a hole in our knowledge. In other words the coin is heads and tails and not that it's either heads or tails, only we don't know which. — Agent Smith

Wikipedia:

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It states that, much like waves in classical physics, any two (or more) quantum states can be added together ("superposed") and the result will be another valid quantum state; and conversely, that every quantum state can be represented as a sum of two or more other distinct states. Mathematically, it refers to a property of solutions to the Schrödinger equation; since the Schrödinger equation is linear, any linear combination of solutions will also be a solution(s)

. . .

In quantum physics, a quantum state is a mathematical entity that provides a probability distribution for the outcomes of each possible measurement on a system

The cat really is either dead or alive, not in some mystical sense, both. Probabilities, on the other hand, are not definitive.

To come to a universal consensus regarding the definition of metaphysics.

I take it you've appealed to your dojo? In that case I don't think The Philosophy Forum can help your cause. Good luck.

But even if you're not going to earn any more ranks after first degree black belt the fact of the matter is that you're just getting started. There is no end — HardWorker

Yes, I'm familiar with most of what you've said. In the Air Force in the late 1950s my best friend was a black belt in Karate.

You need to appeal to the American Karate Association for a change of their philosophy.

However perhaps that's because we haven't developed formal computations complex enough to bridge that gap to subjective states — Benj96

When I was young I never expected mathematics to become so diverse and abstract. Now, with over 26,000 pages on Wikipedia trying to guess what's coming next is nonsense. :cool:

By deaths of despair I mean suicides, including mass shootings, and drug overdoses . . . . . it’s fairly obvious to me based on common sense and the evidence: it’s the guns. — Mikie

Guns cause drug overdoses?

But generally speaking you're correct. Unfortunately, there's no way to round up close to 400,000,000 guns. And they are made so well they last so long.

:up:

I hope that explains how 1 +1 =3 — Benj96

Well, no. But "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" seems more or less to be what you are saying. And, yes, in a sense that's true of integers. For example, 2+3=5, but 2*3=6, so that the sum of the prime factors of 6 is less than 6.

However, I believe you are thinking of a more philosophical idea. And that's fine, just don't try to make mathematics conform to your notions. :cool:

Success lies neither in being appropriated by some arbitrary cultural notion of success nor by giving in to helplesness and misery. E.g. The best free climber in the world, Alex Honnold, was, initially, virtually unknown, had no money and lived out of his car. He neither dumped his passion to pursue more traditional forms of success nor spent his time fretting over useless self-defeating philosophies. And I very much doubt he stole his desire from a self-help cookie jar. — Baden

I like it when specific examples are given to cut through endless dialogues about abstractions. I know Alex and have done a podcast with him. He would shy away from "best free climber", but he could not dispute the fact he has done the most amazing climbing in the history of the sport. His sponsorships, now, I'm sure are substantial, but he certainly didn't set aim for monetary riches. However, I don't think he started out being helpless and miserable.

I've known quite a few "dirtbag" climbers over the years and for most their way of life is not the result of cultural conflicts, but rather a calling. Another friend, a "dirtbag" living on less than a half dollar a day, when I had the luxury of a dollar a day, eons ago, pursued somewhat different goals and ended up a billionaire who recently formed a foundation to protect the environment. But climbing reaches deep within you and you find a way to make a life that at least includes it.

Nevertheless, there is always one form or another of competition underlying the lifestyle. And most have to do with exploring the unknown or pushing boundaries, either by advancing one's credentials by identifying with a certain quantified level of difficulty - a little like a Karate student reaching Black Belt levels - or making a first ascent, or doing something else seen as admirable by the community.

Using the expression, "observer effect" in QM conjures an image of the scientist staring at the particle, which is as bad as the "Earth in a basketball net" describing gravity's effect in cosmology. Even Einstein criticized the use of geometry to describe gravitational forces.

To take a bit of the woo out of QM, instead one should speak of the "measurement effect", which alludes to the machinery doing that task, not the scientist, Gandolf.

Technically, the meanings or interpretations of words seems to be foundational. For example the endless discussions about the word being.

RIP Z :roll:

I am actually very unfamiliar with how they do such tests — noAxioms

Thank you for a moment of honesty. These discussions are like the surface of a sphere, with the actual physics being the interior. It's always amazed me how physicists create the mechanisms to do these experiments. Isolating a single photon? Determining spin,etc.? You can get a PhD in experimental physics and many do - it's not all mathematically enhanced theory.

distinguishing between linear interpretations . . . — Andrew M

The mathematics is linear - a specific kind of function or operation - and this gets confused with "linear interpretation", I think. And then there are "collapses" and so on. How is it possible to even discuss these things without a deep knowledge of the machinery of experiments? That's why its called the measurement problem, ascertaining a quality of an infinitesimal system without altering that quality or another quality. It's beyond me.

. . . and we know no more now about Leibniz's notion of "Monads" — Zettel

Actually, we do regarding monads in mathematics.. Fascinating little critters.

Two wrongs make a right? — Agent Smith

Wrong, you are not right. :brow: You keep moving in a direction, making changes as you go along, hoping for a flash of inspiration or a breakthrough. It's rare that you can see a complicated proof in its entirety at the beginning. :cool:

what Im saying is bad is if you don't let a student test to meet the requirements because you want them to be patient by waiting longer. — HardWorker

Seeing karate as a martial skill only, I agree. Unfortunately, there's the baggage of the culture of the martial art to contend with.

But it's hard to get people to see beyond the purely technical and not focus on going up number or letter or belt grades. I've seen this in a sport I was developing sixty years ago.

That's true to some extent, but belts in karate, such as the black belt, is proof that you've met your sensei's standards. — HardWorker

I've never gone into martial arts. I was a rock climber for over fifty years, however, and there was no culture baggage there, purely skills and accomplishments. No rigid rules (well, the Olympics is another story), just get to it and climb. No belts, just designations like, being a "5.14 climber". Once you've done something that difficult you can wear the tag. Kind of like an invisible belt, I suppose.

:lol: Trial and Error?! — Agent Smith

Utter reality, believe me! You make a sequence of mistakes, altering things as you go along, hoping the sequence converges to the result you're after.

The essence of nature's approach: solve problems by making mistakes. — Agent Smith

Mathematics in a nutshell. The cleaning lady of a famous mathematician was asked what the guy did. She replied, "He scribbles on paper, scowls at it, and wads it up and throws it away."

And if reality can be merely real, can something else can be more than real? — Pantagruel

Say a comedian is lauded by the media, and your expectations are high, but you are disappointed in his performance. That's reality. Say a friend wants to dine at a new restaurant, but someone you know didn't like the food. Then you go there and are pleasantly surprised.

It all has to do with expectations. Reality stays the same, but a heightened sense of reality occurs at times. No, there's nothing "more real".

What exactly did Trump do? — Merkwurdichliebe

Let's see, he didn't allow the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, he attempted to keep illegal aliens from entering the US, he attempted to get European nations to pay their fair share of NATO, he attempted to make peace with several tyrants (that's not all bad), and so on.

Until this documents fiasco shows some serious breaches of national security, it's over-hyped.

And, no, I would not vote for Trump if he runs again, but not everything he did was horrible.

Here are the undergraduate courses offered by Yale: Philosophy Courses (undergraduate)

What do you find is lacking?

Or are you talking mostly about faculty research?

Maybe it just annoys me more than it does others and so I tend to notice it. — Judaka

OK, makes sense. It gets to me at times, also. It's an interesting topic.

Judging the universe is rather like waging war on Neptune — Ciceronianus

You say that as if you know. Well, I've been there and done that and I can tell you it's no picnic. I was medically evacuated on Starflight X-3p and brought back to Earth to have my torso replaced. As far as I'm concerned the damned Neptunites can fend for themselves. What's the galaxy coming to? :roll:

There’s a reason evolution invented aging. — noAxioms

:up: :grin:

Nice commentary. Thanks. :cool:

In social media, news, forums, and many other formats, things don't really work that way. The court of public opinion latches onto appealing reasoning which sounds intuitive or reasonable, especially when the recent results support that reasoning (which of course they will). So, that's where it's a problem — Judaka

So, all you are interested in doing is assessing whether or not a commentator gives a "correct" analysis of why or how something happened in the public sphere? For example, all the different scenarios leading up to the January 6th incident. If there is no predictive value in this pursuit, why engage in it? Simply for the feeling of smugness it might provide? Or as an academic
exercise?

Or, if you say,"I find it enjoyable to do this", I will completely understand. I do the same with abstract mathematics. :smile:

And you don't have to know much about maths to understand the major issue, that being the reality of intelligible objects. — Wayfarer

I agree. That takes it to the realm of the meaning of words: reality.

↪jgill
Isn't it a kind of pleasure which deepens desire rather than satisfying desire?
I think philosophy is like that for me.
It's an intrinsically satisfying activity which always leads to something more, unfinished. — Moliere

:up: :up: Spot on, my friend! It's an ongoing exploratory adventure.

Apart from the fact that most mathematicians (including me) don't spend any time contemplating the possible Platonic nature of their subject, a more intriguing question is what makes a math subject or result "interesting"? Wikipedia lists around 25,000 math articles, so it's impossible for a single person to be more than superficially aware of more than a small percentage of these. What is it that drives these peculiar people to spend hour after hour pushing the boundaries of math further and further out? :chin:

Does private ownership entitle one to do whatever one wants to what is owned? — Mikie

Far far too broad a question. If I wear a ring and decide I don't like it I can throw it into a garbage dump and forget about it. If I own a car I cannot legally drive down an interstate highway in the south lane going north.

Narrow down the discussion and it might become interesting. Not so, now.

Patience is being taught as well as pure technical skills. Not unusual for an Oriental martial art.

It sounds like you are young and eager to gain recognition among your peers. This is not unusual, either.

What should one do - or perhaps not do? Is your sensei trying to teach you something about life?

A good friend of mine designed the USMC martial arts program several years ago. Here is a requirement for advancement to 1st degree black belt:

Training hours - 20 hours 45 minutes
(1) Physical discipline – 12 hours 45 minutes.
(2) Character/Mental discipline – 8 hours.

Part of mental discipline is patience, and this is part of the warrior culture. You are not just learning how to trip up an opponent.

But it's hard to get people to see beyond the purely technical and not focus on going up number or letter or belt grades. I've seen this in a sport I was developing sixty years ago.

However, I don't want that for my example. I want:
1) To know the result beforehand
2) To never have to take my analysis outside of this isolated incident
3) For my analysis to speak for itself without having to produce results of any kind — Judaka

1) A hammer hits my foot.
2) Who cares if this happens to others.
3) I determine I knocked it off the table by accident.

Big deal.

The scenario involves a person in a universe that is perfectly symmetrically arranged around her center of vision. — IEP

One Bruce is a kind of mirror image of the other. Not a simple reflection.

In FIne's example there are two descriptions yet it is unclear if there are one or two individuals. — Banno

I look at a graph on which are defined an x-axis and a y-axis. To the left of the y-axis is the line x=-1, to the right is the line x=1. There are two descriptions in this symmetric world, and two "individuals". But I see how one could say this is the same line in two places.

Stretching the idea a bit, in math a homeomorphism means a continuous transformation of one object into another (doughnut to coffee cup, e.g.) preserving certain attributes. If one Bruce undergoes this process into the other, they are in a sense the same - homeomorphic. In this case they don't even have to resemble each other.

I don't see any deep ideas here. It's simply another word game IMO.

Academically, the study of economics is interesting to contemplate in this discussion. The dismal science is always looking backward, trying to determine patterns that predict certain outcomes. An example is something that is apparent now: the inverted yield curve. In the past this has been followed by a recession. Will that happen in the near future?

When I write a computer program and it fails to deliver the result I want, I go back and analyze, step by step to find my mistake. So the outcome is a mistake, clearly, and I move backward in time to see what occurred.

These so-called critical thinkers are at the mercy of what they're exposed to, they'll conclude in favour of whatever was the most recent outcome, based on whatever material comes their way. No need to convince with arguments, just show occurrences that conclude the way you want. The public will naturally process everything the way you wanted them to anyway — Judaka

The antithesis of academic historians' efforts. You're speaking of the babble that comes off the TV or social sites. If so, what's your point? The obvious?