I think philosophy is that branch of thinking, which connects reality to knowledge, but supported by less evidence than scientific knowledge.

In this sense, philosophy has no business in meddling in quantum theory. Quantum theory is a science, because it makes predicive results possible. Philosophy is really hard pressed to make even remotely accurate predictions.

The difference between quantum theory and philosophy is the same difference as between any branch of science and philosophy.

That quantum theory is weird, and so is philosophy, is not enough to establish strong connections or identicality. It's like the numbers pulled in lottery draws are completely random, therefore a completely random selection of numbers must win the first prize every time. But much like that is based on false logic, so is the notion that weirdness is an indication of similarity.

In this sense, philosophy has no business in meddling in quantum theory. Quantum theory is a science, because it makes predicive results possible. Philosophy is really hard pressed to make even remotely accurate predictions. — god must be atheist

A couple of things I would say to this:

1. Many fields of human knowledge started out as philosophy, then became an -ology or -omy once they firmed up into making testable predictions. I'm only saying this because I think it's a bit unfair when people imply philosophy has never contributed anything (which you haven't said, but might be alluding to).

2. I'm fine with philosophers leaving science alone as soon as scientists leave philosophy alone.
A number of high-profile astrophysicists, neuroscientists etc make plenty of philosophical claims, and worse, they are often very dismissive of philosophers. So it's a case of "Don't listen to philosophers, it's all nonsense. Now, listen to my philosophical claims..."
Furthermore, these kinds of claims are often easily-debunked, because being a great theoretical physicist doesn't automatically mean that you are better at philosophical reasoning than the next man.

You're absolutely right. Einstein's theory of specific relativity was pure philosophy at first, which got to be scientific knowledge after its predictive nature was shown. Newton's theory of gravity was at first mere philosophy. Maslow's theory of needs in a pyramid form is still not science but philosophy.

I know very little about quantum physics, even as a mathematician. Philosophical speculation may easily drift into Quantum Mysticism. I prefer to leave the subject to trained physicists, but I realize it's such fun to discuss it it's hard to resist. :cool:

I know very little about quantum physics, even as a mathematician. Philosophical speculation may easily drift into Quantum Mysticism. I prefer to leave the subject to trained physicists, but I realize it's such fun to discuss it it's hard to resist. — jgill

Why would quantum mysticism be better addressed by trained physicists than by trained mystics?

Metaphysical issues move unavoidably in both directions between philosophy and scientific theorizing and explication. In philosophy, scientific facts are fundamental in keeping things grounded, and scientific theorizing is focused philosophical inquiry with hopes of empirical support. The math may be different but that's to be expected, as scientific logic is much broader than the philosophical classicism still in practice.

then I see someone trying to apply the principles or certain interpretations to philosophy such as this: — Darkneos

There is a good reason why philosophers are intrigued by Quantum Theory : Theory, per se, is informed metaphysical speculation, as opposed to practical physical research. And Metaphysics is the residue of ancient Philosophy that was left behind by Materialistic Science for "feckless" philosophers to play with. For several centuries, Materialism was the dominant worldview for scientists. But after quantum queerness emerged from slicing atoms into sub-atomic "particles", the foundation of Atomism/Materialism as a worldview was called into question.

Even so, most quantum physicists continue to "interpret" photons as-if they are petite balls of solid stuff. But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. This means that they are studied in terms of Metaphysics, rather than of material Physics. And that opens the door to philosophical speculation, which would never have been taken seriously before spooky Quantum Nature became the dominant theory of Reality. :smile:

Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.
(i.e material reality)

Why would quantum mysticism be better addressed by trained physicists than by trained mystics? — Metaphysician Undercover

By interacting with the Higgs Field, trained mystics would become weighty and pretentious. But I could be wrong. There's a lot of uncertainty here. :chin:

Materialistic Science — Gnomon

You're awfully certain that there is such a thing. I always thought materialism is something practiced with balls and sticks or by kicking big rocks. Or by babies gnawing on their big toes. It's the science part that I don't get.
Physicists are physicalists which is quite different than materialism in spite of what people pretend to. Physics is a mathematical symbolic science. What's the symbol for a material?

So it's a case of "Don't listen to philosophers, it's all nonsense. Now, listen to my philosophical claims..." — Mijin

That sounds like the history of philosophy.

Even so, most quantum physicists continue to "interpret" photons as-if they are petite balls of solid stuff. — Gnomon

They absolutely do not.

To some even suggesting that Quantum physics is proof that nothing exists or is real (it doesn't but any interpretation of it can say what you want it to say). Considering how weird it is, and how not even the people who do it fully understand what is going on do you think there is a place for philosophy in this or should we just leave well enough alone. — Darkneos

Yeah this is my bugbear too. It's used as a propaganda tool by the untrained for the untrained to forward whatever unscientific world view the former feel obliged to peddle.

I was in Tanzania for a few months and was housed with this other guy from England. I asked him what he did and he said he was a personal trainer, but that he was much more than that. I asked him how so and he replied he used quantum theory. He explained to me that everything in the universe is either positive or negative (fine), and that when you bring positive and negative together it created energy (I guess he was thinking of matter-antimatter annihilation?), that energy equated to love, and that's quantum theory. He asked me what I did and I told him I was doing a PhD in quantum theory and left it at that. That guy hated my guts for the whole of his stay after that, which I rather enjoyed.

Nothing excites a charlatan more than the idea of something being unknowable.

Anyway, I do think there's a vital place for philosophy in all science. The ramifications of QM are perfectly reasonable philosophical problems, since they lie outside of empiricism and therefore outside of science's purview... for now, at least. I think the important thing is to not confuse interpretation with empirically-verified theory. For instance, non-determinists and incompatibilists seem to like QM a lot because of the lack of distinction between quantum theory and non-deterministic interpretations thereof.

Not exactly. The thing about quantum physics is that there are atoms and they are "solid" for all intents and purposes. I don't know the specific answer but they told me that no is does not say that nothing exists, it just means reality isn't what we thought. But quantum mechanics did not unseat materialism.

But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. — Gnomon

This is still debated but the answer seems to be no, they are made of fields. They are NOT studied in metaphysics and are still in the realm of material physics. It's also worth noting that Quantum physics breaks down at particles above a certain size. Ergo it doesn't explain anything about our day to day lives and the principles don't apply there. That still doesn't stop idiots from trying to suggest it does.

As much as those who study Metaphysics WANT to believe that QM opens that door, they will be sorry to see it does not. QM is high level math and the varied interpretations are just attempts to explain what the math is saying, it's more for the public to be honest. But if you have no degree in the subject you will not understand what they are getting at. Which is how misinformation on the topic proliferates. As you can see in the link we get a lot of people either using the terms incorrectly to make their point or just outright saying that quantum physics says X when it doesn't in the slightest. Though to correct the misinformation would require teaching the public the subject and that is not as attractive as the interpretations.

"Trained mystics" is the equivalent of saying you're a level 110 Warlock in World of Warcraft.

Einstein's theory of specific relativity was pure philosophy at first, which got to be scientific knowledge after its predictive nature was shown. Newton's theory of gravity was at first mere philosophy. Maslow's theory of needs in a pyramid form is still not science but philosophy. — god must be atheist

Right, and these are very good examples of my point that concepts stop being called "philosophy" when they start making testable predictions.

But in terms of scientists being amateur philosophers I also meant it in a more negative way; of certain high-profile scientists taking philosophical positions that are nothing to do with their background (e.g. an astrophysicist talking about consciousness) and being quite dismissive of philosophical discussion on said topic (so often they are not even aware of the counter-arguments to their position).

I have supported both your points, Mijin. You are preaching to the choir. I cited the examples PRECISELY and EXCLUSIVELY to support your opinions. It's the second post you put that steers me in the directon that I am already facing. Please relax now.

What's the symbol for a material? — magritte

M, m. It denotes mass. There is no mass without material or matter.

I get your point, I am just answering your question, without any further or ulterior or hidden or implied opinion on your post.

Please relax now. — god must be atheist

What? I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I was just clarifying one of my points.

Materialistic Science — Gnomon
You're awfully certain that there is such a thing. — magritte

Sure, I'm sure, because I read it in Wikipedia. :nerd:

Scientific Materialism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientistic_materialism

Materialism : Philosophy
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

Even so, most quantum physicists continue to "interpret" photons as-if they are petite balls of solid stuff. — Gnomon
They absolutely do not. — Kenosha Kid

They still call it the Wave Function "of a particle". So, it seems that most physicists still treat holistic quantum level wave functions as-if they are tiny balls of stuff.

But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. — Gnomon
This is still debated but the answer seems to be no, they are made of fields. — Darkneos

That's what I said. A "field" is an abstract mathematical definition, not a physical object in the traditional sense. A "model" is an abstraction from physical reality, and can be studied only mathematically, not physically. :nerd:

Quantum Field Theory : QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Quasiparticle : emergent phenomena that occur when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as if it contained different weakly interacting particles in vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

Quasi- : seemingly; apparently but not really.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

They still call it the Wave Function "of a particle". So, it seems that most physicists still treat holistic quantum level wave functions as-if they are tiny balls of stuff. — Gnomon

A particle is any quantised phenomenon. A phonon -- a quantised vibration -- is a pseudo-particle, for instance, because it behaves like a particle even though it is a collective behaviour. By "particle", physicists do not mean a tiny ball, just a quantised excitation of a field. All particles are described as waves.

As much as those who study Metaphysics WANT to believe that QM opens that door, they will be sorry to see it does not. — Darkneos

If the thing studied is not physical, what is it if not meta-physical? :smile:

Non-physical : not tangible or concrete.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

Metaphysical : highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.

philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/

All particles are described as waves. — Kenosha Kid

They may be described mathematically as waves, but they are portrayed graphically as balls. That's because the human mind can only imagine metaphysical abstractions as symbolic concrete images. It's a semantic difference, but applicable to this topic. Can you imagine the mathematical number "four" as a physical object? No, because it's a metaphysical object, for which we have names, but no realistic images. :joke:



Note: One of the numbers in the Schrödinger equation is imaginary.

All particles are described as waves. — Kenosha Kid

OK. But it's still Metaphysics. :cool:

What? I wasn't disagreeing with you.
I was just clarifying one of my points. — Mijin

thanks.

They may be described mathematically as waves, but they are portrayed graphically as balls. — Gnomon

Gnomon, you remind me of the adage, "if someone ascribes an attribute to a system that is not in that system, the person ascribing is most likely very far from understanding that system."

Metaphysics is something I don't understand. I don't even have a remotely useful concept of the concept. So I leave it like that. I don't go comparing metaphysics to thought, to consciousness, to QM, to miracles, because I don't have a working concept of what metaphysics is.

I think those who don't quite have even a rudimentary knowledge of QM or even of classical phyisics, ought not to take ownership of physics, and declare how QM is an explanation to non-phyisics phenonmena.

One of the numbers in the Schrödinger equation is imaginary.

If I may interject with an elementary understanding, the necessity of mathematically complex representations with regards to traditional wavefunctions is born out of their dichotomous formulation (ie. a real and complex phase and amplitude respectively), as opposed to a philosophical construction. Classical mechanics dictate one-dimensional representations, which are wholly or partially insufficient in describing quantum states. The mathematical underpinnings of QM, apart from a few rarefied experimental instances, are not observable, thus rendering their complexity/imaginary components arbitrary in and of themselves. When both components are considered universally, their definitive result will necessarily be real and descriptive of a physical state. If I interpret your suggestion correctly, the metaphysics of Schrodinger's equations are, if existent, not attributable to their imaginary parts.

Here's an outline I've used to build my comprehension of the above, in confirmation of my inklings.

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Quantum_Mechanics/Book%3A_Introductory_Quantum_Mechanics_(Fitzpatrick)/02%3A_Wave-Particle_Duality/2.03%3A_Representation_of_Waves_via_Complex_Functions

They may be described mathematically as waves, but they are portrayed graphically as balls — Gnomon

In my experience, they're usually portrayed graphically as directed lines. It is understood this is not a literal pictorial representation, merely a convenient shorthand for counting probabilities.

Again no. Also I wouldn't argue that four is a metaphysical object, it's a concept. You are trying to attribute to metaphysics what doesn't belong. What you are showing is an atom which is a "ball" but at the base level everything is made of fields. It's not math dude.

Also don't cite equations if you don't understand the math behind it.

Again no. Fields are not mathematical abstract definitions, they can essentially be called energy for lack of a better term. The models can be studied physically. All these fields are in fact made up of particles themselves.

Again you aren't a physicist so your citations don't matter on the subject. I've spoken to those who do know this but they could only give the short answers to it without teaching me.

Gnomon, you remind me of the adage, "if someone ascribes an attribute to a system that is not in that system, the person ascribing is most likely very far from understanding that system."

Metaphysics is something I don't understand. I don't even have a remotely useful concept of the concept. So I leave it like that. I don't go comparing metaphysics to thought, to consciousness, to QM, to miracles, because I don't have a working concept of what metaphysics is.

I think those who don't quite have even a rudimentary knowledge of QM or even of classical phyisics, ought not to take ownership of physics, and declare how QM is an explanation to non-phyisics phenonmena. — god must be atheist

GMBA
I know that was a put-down. But, are you seriously implying that -- in your professional opinion -- Quantum phenomena do not belong in the Metaphysical "system". Apparently, you think I'm talking about Mysticism. But I'm simply following the lead of some professional Physicists and Information Theorists. So, I would agree that Quantum Fields do not belong in the Mystical system, But it does fall into the category of pure theoretical Mathematics, which is metaphysical, in the Aristotelian sense.

On a philosophical forum, you should "understand" Metaphysics, because it's the only part of ancient philosophy that has been left by "hard" empirical Scientists to feckless Philosophers, and to "soft" theoretical Physicists, such as Einstein. Even the big "E" couldn't reconcile his post-classical theories with the spooky empty-space-warping phenomenon of gravity.

Maybe the definition below will help you to understand Meta-Physics as Aristotle intended, not as "idle speculation" -- as attributed by some hard-nosed modern Materialists. Note the distinction between empirical "perception" and theoretical "conception". If you are thinking in terms of "classical physics", you are behind the eight-ball -- which is actually a hypothetical "wave" in a non-fluid immaterial field. :joke:


The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics : Quantum mechanics, like any physical theory, comes equipped with many metaphysical assumptions and implications. The line between metaphysics and physics is often blurry, but as a rough guide, one can think of a theory's metaphysics as those foundational assumptions made in its interpretation that are not usually directly tested in experiment.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_119
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11245-015-9344-1

Difference Between Metaphysics & Quantum Physics : Is quantum physics a metaphysics?
Although metaphysics and quantum physics deal with the scholarly examination of the surrounding world, the two approach the subject from two different disciplines, namely philosophy for metaphysics and hard science for quantum physics.
https://sciencing.com/use-plancks-constant-2378.html
Note : how "hard" is an invisible intangible Field that only exists in the imagination of a theoretical physicist?

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Is Math Metaphysical? : http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

Again no. Also I wouldn't argue that four is a metaphysical object, it's a concept. — Darkneos

If the number "four" is not a Metaphysical Object, does that mean it's a Physical object? If so, what is it's Being, Existence, and Reality? Are "concepts" Real or Ideal? Is Mathematics "fundamental" or trivial? :smile:

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental questions, including the nature of concepts like being, existence, and reality.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Category:Concepts_in_metaphysics
Note :not exploring mystical questions

They may be described mathematically as waves, but they are portrayed graphically as balls. — Gnomon

It's not just graphically. There are multiple models of the atom, and while there is a clear "best", most accurate model, it's nonetheless often useful to use one of the simpler, less accurate models.

e.g. It's a common misconception that teaching high school kids a planetary-ish model of the atom is wrong. When in fact, it's no more wrong than depicting the entire atom as a single sphere when teaching about the states of matter is wrong (or indeed, all high school chemistry). It's a useful abstraction.

And there is some relevance to my tangent here, in that modern physicists don't focus too much on metaphysical claims of what something "really" is. They make models, and if that model makes good predictions and inferences, that's awesome, but they usually avoid making the claim that the representations in that model are the real and final ones.