Yes. I'm aware that most physicists don't do metaphysics. But philosophers do. And this is a philosophical forum, is it not?. So, why not consider Metaphysical interpretations of Quantum Theory? Classical physics was turned upside-down by quantum queerness. That's because the substructure of reality was no longer viewed as solid little balls of stuff. The foundations of Reality are now described as invisible formless Fields of abstract intangible mathematical Information. As noted in my post above, those waving fields of nothingness cannot be seen in microscopes, but only in the form of abstract equations.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. — Mijin
I'm not proposing that philosophers start meddling in Physics, but that they stick to their specialty : Metaphysics. Besides, if it's "nothing, why are we still debating Metaphysics after all these millennia? Is it possible that there is more to reality than Physics? What does modern philosophy do, if not Meta-physics? If it's useless, why are you posting on a Philosophy forum, instead of a Physics forum? Apparently, some philosophers on this forum are motivated by Physics Envy.If we started allowing metaphysics into quantum physics we will get the same thing that metaphysics has yielded for the past thousand years, nothing. — Darkneos
Could it be because Physics, after 5 centuries, still has not found the key relationship between Mind & Matter, or between Quantitative Substance & Qualitative Attributes, or between the Potentiality of Invisible fields & the Actuality of tangible objects? Could it be because Physics has atomized the world down to sub-atomic "particles" that are described as a "virtual" essence or simulation? Maybe it's because Physics has found that the foundation of the world is Mathematical instead of Material? Or that Gravity is no longer a physical Force, but a metaphysical mathematical "curvature" of empty space? If Quantum Physics, only statistically real, is not downright "spooky", as Einstein called it, it is literally Meta-Physical : beyond the scope of classical Physics. Yet, it remains within the scope of modern Philosophy. :nerd: — Gnomon
This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Consciousness does not play a role in QM. The term "observation" just means any sort of interaction with the system, not a conscious agent.Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill
But when a physicist talks of "excitations" of a field that's a different matter, and one that is highly intriguing. — jgill
This is just the physicist's way of saying we know there's some energy there but we don't know what form it has. — Metaphysician Undercover
Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill
This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation — Darkneos
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's difficult to have a dialog with a mindless zombie. :joke:Mind does not exist, neuroscience killed dualism there. Qualia from what I have heard is a meaningless attribute that caries no real worth. — Darkneos
There's no metaphysical mystery to such immaterial notions : they are all imaginary. :wink:Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill
Sorry. I don't understand the question. Unless you are inadvertently referring to my Enformationism hypothesis. From that perspective, "waves, particles, fields" are various forms of fundamental Information : the power to enform; to create and to change. Moreover, everything in the natural world is a specific form of that general enforming power -- which you may be more familiar with in the form of Energy : the power to cause change.So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing? — jgill
So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing? — jgill
Sorry. I don't understand the question. — Gnomon
Some scientists and philosophers think that "The Holy Trinity" of quantum phenomena are reducible to pure Mathematics. And some think that Mathematics is Metaphysics. Personally, I think that they all boil down to Ideal Platonic Information (Forms). That is a Metaphysical concept, but not necessarily a Mystical notion. Regarding Metaphysics, I am like the Argentine writer, Jorge Luis Borges : "Attracted by metaphysics, but accepting no system as true . . ." :smile:Think of this as a secular counterpart to The Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - all are one and there may be Christian mystics who can envision the three as one imaginary entity. — jgill
Sorry Darkness. I don't believe in extreme philosophical Solipsism, as you imply. But then, Descartes' radical skepticism began from that starting position. He concluded that all else is uncertain to some degree. So, the point of his philosophy was to determine -- via reasoning from that foundation of certainty -- what was believable. Once underway though, most philosophers abandon that radical attitude and adopt a more pragmatic view.I know enough about philosophy to know that you are essentially trying to argue for solipsism. — Darkneos
Yes. I'm aware that most physicists don't do metaphysics. But philosophers do. And this is a philosophical forum, is it not?. So, why not consider Metaphysical interpretations of Quantum Theory? — Gnomon
So, if physicists now think of particles as continuous waves in "fields" (wholes), why do some on this forum insist on referring to waves-in-an-empty-ocean as "parts" (particles)? — Gnomon
That's OK. I get the "Physics is Truth" treatment a lot, when I discuss Metaphysical topics. I'm familiar with the Materialist worldview of most Physicists. And that's OK, as long as they are doing Empirical Science. But when physicists cross-over into Metaphysics, they become speculative Philosophers.I'm not trying to shut the conversation down, I was replying specifically to posts about what physicists say and how physics is taught. — Mijin
Don't worry about it. The remark was directed to those who think of Mathematical Fields as-if they are clouds, or oceans, of minuscule material particles, rather than of statistical mathematical "points", or "excited states" in "state space". Those abstract immaterial "points" are metaphorical, not physical. :smile:I can't parse this question. Seems you are saying both groups are aware of wave particle duality but tend to have a preferred description. Even assuming you're right about that...I don't see any conflict or inconsistency. — Mijin
Apparently, from previous comments, you doubt that even You have a Mind! But, you seem to act as-if you are certain of your own mental/brain powers -- whatever you call them. Do you believe that other people have similar faculties? On what empirical basis? Do you know anything for sure, outside the direct experience of your own mind/brain/senses? On what empirical basis? Have you directly experienced all the "facts" of Science, or do you accept the testimony of those who have personal (solipsistic) experience with the pertinent experiments? — Gnomon
Never Mind. Sorry my philosophizing got your scientific rigor riled-up. But your topic sounded like it was right down my metaphysical alley. :cool:If you are trying to cast doubt on senses and empiricism then you don't have any grounds for trying to tie quantum physics with metaphysics — Darkneos
I never said that I doubt the physical senses or the physical world. That notion is in your imagination. My arguments have nothing to do with doubting the validity of physical sciences. Your prejudice against Metaphysics seems to be the source of your erroneous attributions.I just don't see doubting as a valid form of argument because the same thing can be done right back to you to the point that no one really gets anywhere. Once you start doubting the senses then you don't really get to claim science for support for whatever claim you have. — Darkneos
Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. — Gnomon
then I don't know if it's true or not. Because it contains a phrase which I do not have a clue what it means.Quantum mechanics, like any physical theory, comes equipped with many metaphysical assumptions and implications. — Gnomon
You can feel gravity.So...is gravity meta-physics? It is very real to me. And yet it is not something you can see, touch, smell or taste. — god must be atheist
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.