In the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci, asks, "What Does It Mean To 'Interpret' Quantum Mechanics?" In the early days of Quantum Theory, some Hard-line scientists have been known to claim that there's no need to "make sense" of quantum queerness, as long as the mathematical models work reliably. Hence, they denigrated any rational or metaphorical attempts "to attach physical interpretations to the equations : the math is all there is, the rest is a waste of time . Philosophy, if you will".
But, over the years, that professional smugness seems to have been shaken by their inability to reconcile QT with Classical Physics. A 2017 international survey of physicist's attitudes on "foundational issues" *1 revealed that "the shut-up and calculate school is in the minority, at only 23 percent". — Gnomon
Then he says "Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics". — Gnomon
Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon
When I label my own philosophical "interpretations" of the quantum foundations of reality as "Meta-Physics", I often receive finger-pointing accusations of promoting "woo", or if especially offensive to the poster's belief system, as "woo-woo". — Gnomon
But these days it is catching up as folk come to accept that cherished elements of reality such as determinism, compossibility and locality are emergent features of a quantum reality rather than foundational features of a classical reality. — apokrisis
So what does it mean that there are a whole bunch of QM interpretations that try to demystify its mathematical success in one way or another?
Well, the thing they all have in common is that they want to assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics – the classical view which is founded on determinism, composition and locality.
This simply shows the prevailing metaphysics in scientific circles is out of step with the prevailing physics. Or at least it was in the 1930s or whenever the popular choices were being framed. — apokrisis
Here is a graph summarizing the results of a survey of physicist's opinions of the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics: — T Clark
:clap: :up:Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum.
— Gnomon
That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject — T Clark
Generally, the Copenhagen interpretation is considered equivalent to the shut-up-and-calculate one, although I guess there is some lack of clarity on that. — T Clark
If an interpretation adds value, if it is useful, then it is metaphysics. If it doesn't, if it isn't, it's meaningless. — T Clark
I can't figure out what you mean by "compossibility. — T Clark
Is it firmly established that there is no empirical difference between the interpretations? — T Clark
It's interesting that the survey showed zero percent in favor of a transactional approach. — jgill
I agree that multiple interpretations seems a sign that nothing has leapt out of the pack in way that has advanced the actual physics. But then again, there has been a story in the way attempts to assimilate QM to classical notions – as with EPR and Bell's inequality – have led to ever more subtle experimental evidence in support of nonlocality and indeterminacy.
So the interpretations have been eating away at their own believability and demanding that greater metaphysical paradigm shift in my view. — apokrisis
Seems then that the various interpretations have been useful, even if only as annoying gnats or mosquitos that have to be swatted away. — T Clark
I too am not a physicist, So anything I say about Quantum Physics on a philosophy forum should not be taken as an authoritative pronouncement on physical Science. As non-credentialed laymen, we're not revealing confirmed facts on TPF; just sharing ideas & opinions about open questions that have not been answered definitively by empirical methods. As Piggliucci said, some of them "smell like metaphysics". If professional scientists feel free to speculate on transcendent non-empirical possibilities (beyond space-time, or immaterial mathematical simulations), why should amateur philosophers feel bound to solid ground?members often employed QM or speculative and theoretical physics as a springboard to posit a veritable cosmos of transcendent possibilities.
For my own part, the subject is only of interest to see what others do with it. I am not a physicist. — Tom Storm
Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? Do you have relevant accreditation to verify that your own "opinions are credible" on the subject of Philosophical Diffidence (deferring to Science on philosophical questions), and Foundational Questions of Physics? Based on what expertise do you label an expression of laymanship to be "facile"? Just askin'. :smile:Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon
That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject. — T Clark
Certainly not. However, the agora's "minimum requirement" seems to me two-fold: (A) to recognize and acknowledge what one does not know and (B) to give non-fallacious reasons (i e. valid arguments) supporting what one thinks one knows in ways which are open to non-trivial criticisms – dialectics (e.g. Socrates / Adorno; not Hegel). Absent this, IME, there's nothing but sophistry or pseudo-philosophizing (e.g. pseudo-science) at most. "Professional credentials', etc in some specialized instances may be necessary but they are rarely, if ever, sufficient for thinking – especially where intellectual integrity and corrigibility are lacking. :eyes:Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? — Gnomon
Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? Do you have relevant accreditation to verify that your own "opinions are credible" on the subject of Philosophical Diffidence (deferring to Science on philosophical questions), and Foundational Questions of Physics? — Gnomon
Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon
I have no orthodoxy to be held accountable to. — Gnomon
:100: :fire:The problem here I believe is that the goal of a forum ought to be to express some collective wisdom rather than provide a platform for personal opinion.
Have you ever been to speaker's corner in Hyde Park? Crackpots ranting from soapboxes as public entertainment? A sad sight.
Crackpots want all the glory for doing none of the work. — apokrisis
So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis
what does it mean that there are a whole bunch of QM interpretations that try to demystify its mathematical success in one way or another?
Well, the thing they all have in common is that they want to assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics – the classical view which is founded on determinism, composition and locality.
This simply shows the prevailing metaphysics in scientific circles is out of step with the prevailing physics — apokrisis
But the problem is that in QM the "evidence" lead to a deadend so far.The actual theory itself is schocking and mind blowing to what we already knew about nature.And that's the reason generating so many different interpretations.And such no surprise that many of these "crackpots" are actually well known scientists.So I don't think is easy to distinguish them.Except from "extreme cases of crackpotters". — dimosthenis9
By the way, i remember how surprised (not to say schocked) I felt when i first read that the dominate interpretation in QM is Coppenchangen's.
That consciousness affects the results.Mind interferes matter.That's actually pure metaphysics! — dimosthenis9
Isnt the relevant question, who in particular wants to, as you say, assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics? What if it turned out that a majority of the key players in the development of current QM thinking were in this category? Would we have any justification in claiming that they are failing to grasp the correct metaphysics? There is a cottage industry of philosophers wanting to assimilate QM to their favored philosophical foundation , but could there be any arbiter better suited to determine what sort of metaphysical foundation is implicated by QM than one of its inventors? What is the metaphysical underpinning of Newtonian mechanics? Isn’t Newton’s own metaphysics writing an excellent source? — Joshs
All the players are tightly constrained to stay within the maths, but allowed to be free as they like with their ontologies. — apokrisis
This doesn't look like a deadend. It looks more like a serious conversation about the most difficult of things. — apokrisis
That is now the least supported version of Copenhagenism. — apokrisis
is how actual measurements can get made when the observer is also part of the system. — apokrisis
You still don't know where to place the epistemic cut – the division between the observer and the observed – in a generally agreed sense. — apokrisis
We should now know just where to look to find the intersection between classical observers and their quantum realities. — apokrisis
Is that your official definition as an accredited expert on knowledge-in-general? Or is that just your layman's opinion on a debatable question? Can you give an example of "knowledge" you have contributed to this forum that has "resulted in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion"? What "official quantum interpretation" do you accept as authoritative & definitive for settling differences of opinion on The Philosophy Forum?What defines knowledge is that you can act on it. It is pragmatic. It is a model of reality that results in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion.
But that is understandable. While most official quantum interpretations just want to assimilate its mathematical structures to a classical metaphysics perspective, the woo-merchants are trying to assimilate them to their romantic notions about mind and spirit. The metaphysical grounding ain't even classical, but animistic or theistic. — apokrisis
Are you a credentialed expert on "woo mongering"? — Gnomon
What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time? Historically, the gathering evidence for anthropic initial settings made the BBT sound too much like a Creation Event. So, cosmologists went in search of plausible explanations for such large-scale organized structures that could be accidental, instead of intentional. :smile:So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis
Unstated assumptions : Speculation Bad! Metaphysics Bad!Here is a summary of the argument you have presented in this discussion, as I understand it:
Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are controversial.
1. Qualified scientists can't agree on the proper interpretations or even if any interpretation is needed or possible.
2. Based on this, a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics says "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics."
3. Based on that confusion and lack of consensus, Gnomon is justified in any speculation he makes about quantum mechanics or related metaphysics. — T Clark
Good for you! Does that professional "engagement" with word-processing certify your authority to label people's opinions with the technical term "woo". Did that "n*gger" word come from Physics or Psychology or Popular Science? Historically, Racists have justified their prejudice with scientific evidence. They too, "engaged" in propagating personal repugnance disguised as scientific facts.As a science writer I was indeed professionally engaged in delving into varieties of woo mongering in the 1990s, from psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence, to all sorts.
So this was woo at the academic level - professors with labs. :grin: — apokrisis
What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time?
The biggest result in cosmology in a decade fades into dust — Gnomon
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.