instead of imagining that particles miraculaously turn into waves, and then back again to form a dot on a detector, why not accept the simpler option of a hidden pool of stuff that is causing the wave which the particles ride? — Gary Enfield
it seems to me that reality must consist in different forms of a single substance. In essence, apparent dualism always resolves into a multifaceted monism within the most accurate explanations since initial conditions of all causal events are shared, even if this causality proves to arise from an eternal substrate. — Enrique
I don't see why the presence of 2 types of stuff underpinning reality is such a problem. Where is the conceptual difficulty in imagining two types of material underpinning the universe, and them interacting with each other? Why does that have to become two aspects of the same stuff? — Gary Enfield
I don't see why the presence of 2 types of stuff underpinning reality is such a problem. Where is the conceptual difficulty in imagining two types of material underpinning the universe, and them interacting with each other? Why does that have to become two aspects of the same stuff? — Gary Enfield
I use the word "soul" in a context that only mathematicians can understand. It means not only superficial comprehension but deeper context, what lies beneath even the proof of the theory, a feeling of the actual substance of the concept. I would not be surprised if future development of quantum theory might arise from going to the soul of the math that seems to predict so well. If so, philosophers may be chipping away at pretty hard marble. — jgill
But I wonder if Feynman wasn't onto something when he argued to do the calculating, focus on the math and stop speculating. — jgill
Well the question then is how did these two types of stuff get differentiated if they interact? To explain that you have to presume the two types of stuff are different, divergent forms of the same stuff. Two fundamentally and eternally unfiliated stuffs that cocausate is preposterous. — Enrique
It is much more straight-forward to think of the fabric as a continuous wave form, similar to how one imagines a hologram. — MondoR
There is no conceptual logic that I can see which would prevent two types of stuff bouncing off each other for all eternity. Please explain it if one does exist. — Gary Enfield
Yes, it is more straightforward - but that doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying that the alternate is guaranteed to be true either, but it is a possibility driven by evidence. — Gary Enfield
I'm not aware of any evidence that a particle/fundamentally different stuff
differentiation exists. — Enrique
if particles ride dark matter waves their behavior is probably mutualized enough with dark matter for whatever reason that this amounts to a synthetic substance in some degree. — Enrique
First, it is unlikely that there are exactly two types of stuff, particles and waves, absolutely differentiated. The reality must undoubtedly be so much more complex that duality ceases to have descriptive relevance. Second, all matter thus far experienced has evolved from common antecedents, so it is most likely that if particles ride a more foundational wave substance, the particles evolved out of it. Its not conceptually impossible for eternally distinct particle and "wave" substance to exist, nor is anything else, but the most probable explanation due to their pervasive interactiveness is that they have a common origin with impulsion towards combinatory states. As a fanciful example, if particles ride dark matter waves their behavior is probably mutualized enough with dark matter for whatever reason that this amounts to a synthetic substance in some degree. — Enrique
The existence of waves necessitates the conclusion that there is a substance (commonly referred to as the ether) within which the waves are active. — Metaphysician Undercover
Waves might be substrate-less. That is, they may not be like the waves in the water, which is the substrate for the waves. They are only waves. — spirit-salamander
It is nonsense, completely illogical, and fundamentally contrary to good science, for anyone to say that "waves might be substrate-less", regardless of your appeal to authority. — Metaphysician Undercover
I find an absolute wave/corpuscle duality problematic on philosophical grounds because it seems to me that reality must consist in different forms of a single substance. — Enrique
"The world is one substance. As satisfying as this discovery may be to philosophers, it is profoundly distressing to physicists as long as they do not understand the nature of that substance. For if quantumstuff is all there is and you don't understand quantumstuff, your ignorance is complete." (Nick Herbert - Quantum Reality: BEYOND THE NEW PHYSICS) — spirit-salamander
[/quote]Until you accept that there is a difference here, further discussion is pointless. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, "2+2=green" has meaning. But I would reject this statement as inconsistent with the principles that I already understand and accept. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know, the answer to these questions. "Meaning" is not an easy topic. That's why there's so many philosophical debates about it. I really do not know what meaning is, or how I know that something has meaning. Those are questions yet to be answered. — Metaphysician Undercover
By asking this question you indicate that you paid not attention to my explanation of what "=" signifies, or means in common mathematical usage, and what "is the same as" signifies or means in the law of identity. Since you still cannot see the difference here, after I've explained it countless times to you, it seems pointless to explain it again. It's actually a very simple difference, and very easy to understand. — Metaphysician Undercover
We learn values in school. If you still haven't learned the value of 4 yet, you could talk to a primary school teacher, or look it up on the web. You'll find there's a lot of educational stuff like that if you google it . — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, that's a very real problem. We often do not know whether a word signifies something with thinghood or not. That is the case with quantum physics and wave/particle duality. Physicists cannot determine the "thinghood" of the described phenomena. — Metaphysician Undercover
Since you seem to have no idea of what "value" means I suggest you do some research into this topic, and come back to me when you get above the primary school level. — Metaphysician Undercover
Obviously you never looked into this, and haven't looked beyond your own nose to see what others say about what "=" signifies. The following is the opening paragraph from the Wikipedia entry — Metaphysician Undercover
The equals sign (British English, Unicode Consortium[1]) or equal sign (American English), formerly known as the equality sign, is the mathematical symbol =, which is used to indicate equality in some well-defined sense.[2][3] In an equation, it is placed between two expressions that have the same value, or for which one studies the conditions under which they have the same value.
— Wikipedia: equals sign[/url]
LOL. You're pasting that para to support some kind of argument? Your stuff is weak here. And you're agreeing with me. Because I can define the value of 2 + 2 very easily from first principles, based on the REFERENT that I assign to the expression. You on the other hand DENY there is any referent, so YOU are the one who can't figure out how to assign the expression a value.
— Metaphysician Undercover
Notice the mention of "the same value". — Metaphysician Undercover
Do you accept that there is a difference between "is the same as" and "has the same value as"? — Metaphysician Undercover
The former phrase is the phrase used by the law of identity. The latter phrase is what is signified by "=", as the Wikipedia entry indicates. — Metaphysician Undercover
Until you accept that there is a difference here, further discussion is pointless. — Metaphysician Undercover
What does it mean? — fishfry
When I say that 2 + 2 = 4 has meaning, it's because I have defined '2', '4', '=', and '+' according to the standard mathematical conventions, either within the Peano axioms or ZF set theory. In other words from my viewpoint 2 + 2 and 4 and '=' all refer to something. The somethings that they refer to are abstract mathematical objects. And I will stipulate that when you challenged me to define exactly what I mean by those, I was stuck. I admit that! But at least by saying what these expressions refer to (in my mathematical ontology), I can thereby assign meaning and value to them. The meaning and value of these expressions derive from the referents I have assigned to them. — fishfry
But you say that 2 + 2 and 4 don't refer to anything. So it is now incumbent on you -- not just for me, but for working out your own thoughts for yourself -- to figure out how to define the meaning and value of syntax tokens that you claim don't refer to anything at all! Do you take my point here? — fishfry
There is nothing simple about your point of view. Nor have you explained "what '=' signifies" in the least. I haven't seen you do it. — fishfry
Do you accept that there is a difference between "is the same as" and "has the same value as"? The former phrase is the phrase used by the law of identity. The latter phrase is what is signified by "=", as the Wikipedia entry indicates. — Metaphysician Undercover
It's funny. You can't answer the question I put to you: If 2 + 2 has no referent, how does it obtain its meaning or value? — fishfry
But I have a perfect understanding of what the meaning and value of 2 + 2 are. — fishfry
I DO have a crystal clear understanding of how the meaning and value of 2 + 2 derive from the mathematical REFERENT of the expression. Whereas you DENY there is a referent, so you are STUCK trying to figure out how to derive the expression's meaning and value. Why don't you work on this and let me know if you have any fresh ideas on the matter. — fishfry
Agreed on this point. But note that I can define what the value of 2 + 2 is, and you can't. Because you deny that 2 + 2 has any referent. — fishfry
But you deny the expressions have any referents at all, so I don't see how you're in a position to claim that they have the same value, or different values, or any values at all. How can we know their values if they have no referents? — fishfry
I, on the other hand, have a perfectly sensible way to define their values, based on the referents I have assigned them in PA or ZF. I can do this from first principles. — fishfry
* You claim 2 + 2 has no referent, and since it has no referent, you can't tell me how to determine its value. — fishfry
See how easy it is? Grade school stuff. — Metaphysician Undercover
Participating at TPF has necessitated that I become an expert at grade school principles, because many people here do not seem to understand these very basic principles, like what "=" signifies. And so, I have to explain over and over again, the same principle, in as many different ways as possible, in an attempt to dispel the misunderstandings which these people hold. It seems to be much easier to teach young children these principles than it is to teach adults who have already developed bad habits of misunderstanding, by accepting contrary principles. So the teacher of adults, must become an expert, rather than just an average teacher, requiring not only to instill good habits of understanding, but first needing to dispel bad habits of misunderstanding. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.