• SophistiCat
    2.2k
    If you read the intellectual biographical recollections of Heisenberg (or Schrödinger, or Einstein) you'll find that there are lots of philosophical and other a priori considerations that grounded their theoretical innovations.Pierre-Normand

    Of course, I didn't mean to imply that the development of new scientific theories is mere curve-fitting. Philosophical and even esthetic considerations played a role. But if that's the extent of the "profound similarities," that's not much.
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    If you read the intellectual biographical recollections of Heisenberg (or Schrödinger, or Einstein) you'll find that there are lots of philosophical and other a priori considerations that grounded their theoretical innovations.Pierre-Normand

    They were (ahem) Europeans, who were quite steeped in the European philosophical tradition; unlike, for instance, Sean Carroll and other contemporary physicists who comment on philosophy. Schrodinger frequently referred to Schopenhauer, Heisenberg to the Greek philosophers.

    Many are now still convinced that quantum theories and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are 'discoveries of the way the world really is.' But they are not.ernestm

    Heisenberg himself would not have said that. He is famous for saying 'What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning'.

    Those who dismiss domains of mind, independent of matter, have already dismissed much that can be explained.ernestm

    That is very much a consequence of the history of Western thought, in particular, subsequent to Descartes, who posited a world comprising mind and matter.

    I have read something of the debates between the early Indian atomists and Buddhists; the Buddhists are the ones who argued that the idea of a 'dimensionless point' is incoherent, on account of it not having any sides. However none of the ancients had any ideas corresponding to electromagnetic fields or 'action at a distance' or anything of that nature.

    I think the main philosophical significance of quantum mechanics is that it undermines materialism, as Adam Frank explains.
  • tom
    1.5k
    I think the main philosophical significance of quantum mechanics is that it undermines materialism, as Adam Frank explains.Wayfarer

    Except that he explains that there is an interpretation that doesn't do that.
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    You mean,

    The many-worlds Interpretation is one that many materialists favor, but it comes with a steep price. — Adam Frank

    That price being, a proliferation of universes. It's a case of a desperate problem calling for a desparate solution, as far as I am concerned.
  • tom
    1.5k
    That price being, a proliferation of universes. It's a case of a desperate problem calling for a desparate solution, as far as I am concerned.Wayfarer

    That is false. There are no more "worlds" in Many Worlds than already exist in cosmology. And the "worlds" don't proliferate. There is no "price" to pay - MW adds no complexity. Some even think the cosmological multiverse and the quantum multiverse are the same thing.
  • ernestm
    1k
    I'm sorry, but the existence of quantum mechanic theory has nothing at all to do with proving or disproving materialism. I have noticed this is a very common error arising from a misunderstanding of dualism.
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    you should read the essay Ernest. It's wrrtten by someone with credentials in the field.
  • tom
    1.5k
    you should read the essay Ernest. It's wrrtten by someone with credentials in the field.Wayfarer

    The essay which explicitly says that, in order to pretend that QM has anything to say about proving or disproving materialism, you need to pretend QM is an abnormal theory.
  • ernestm
    1k
    Dualism is nothing at all to do with the functionality of models of the material world. It is about how the abstractions we apply to our perception of material states and events might themselves be independent of material reality.
  • tom
    1.5k
    Dualism is nothing at all to do with the functionality of models of the material world. It is about how the abstractions we apply to our perception of material states and events might themselves be independent of material reality.ernestm

    You mean likr non-computable numbers?
  • ernestm
    1k
    that goes back to my first statement. Although we can improve our comprehension by effort, reality is ultimately beyond perfect comprehension. I do remember having some problem understanding imaginary numbers, and I still don't enjoy doing maths with them.
  • tom
    1.5k
    Although we can improve our comprehension by effort, reality is ultimately beyond perfect comprehension.ernestm

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is proved that reality is perfectly comprehensible.
  • ernestm
    1k
    well, that depends how much of reality you want to comprehend, doesn't it.
  • tom
    1.5k
    well, that depends how much of reality you want to comprehend, doesn't it.ernestm

    Does it? What do you know?
  • ernestm
    1k
    According to you, I can't know any no more than you do, because you understand everything perfectly. So whatever I say you will say is wrong, probably including this statement.
  • tom
    1.5k
    According to you, I can't know any no more than you do, because you understand everything perfectly. So whatever I say you will say is wrong, probably including this statement.ernestm

    It would help if you could construct a sentence.

    Anyway, it is proved that reality is comprehensible. it is an exact physical law.
  • ernestm
    1k
    I look forward to your disproof of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. Please do send me the link to your paper )
  • tom
    1.5k
    I look forward to your disproof of Gödel's second incompleteness theorem. Please do send me the link to your paper )ernestm

    Please explain the relevance of Gödel's 2nd theorem?
  • ernestm
    1k
    That's your second problem. You didn't understand the grammar of one of my posts either. rofl.
  • tom
    1.5k
    That's your second problem. You didn't understand the grammar of one of my posts either. rofl.ernestm

    If you can't explain your claimed relevance of Gödel's 2nd theorem to the comprehensibility of reality, then you have been caught bull-shitting.
  • ernestm
    1k
    You were the one who said you understand everything, and as an axiomatic system is consistent only if incomplete, according to the best of current thought on the topic, you must have a solution to it we don't know. So I request your paper on it a second time, and excuse me but I have less entertaining things to do.
  • tom
    1.5k
    You were the one who said you understand everything,ernestm

    You are lying.

    and as an axiomatic system is consistent only if incomplete, according to the best of current thought on the topic, you must have a solution to it we don't knowernestm

    What do axiomatic systems have to do with the fundamental comprehensibility of reality?

    So I request your paper on it a second time, and excuse me but I have less entertaining things to do.ernestm

    So you are happy to bullshit, but want a reference from me. Well here it is:

    http://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/deutsch85.pdf
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    You were the one who said you understand everything,
    — ernestm

    You are lying.
    tom

    Well, you're the one who did say:
    it is proved that reality is perfectly comprehensible.tom

    So, if reality is perfectly comprehensible, then surely you must understand everything, mustn't you? Doesn't the first entail the second?
  • ernestm
    1k
    Yes, necessarily so, because if you don't understand everything, you can't know that everything is understandable.
  • tom
    1.5k
    So, if reality is perfectly comprehensible, then surely you must understand everything, mustn't you? Doesn't the first entail the second?Wayfarer

    Let me hold you by the hand and give you a childish example: An equation may have a solution, which you may prove must exist, but that does not mean you possess the solution. Is that a bit complicated?

    "then surely you must understand everything"? Fucking idiot!
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    Mind your temper.

    'Knowing that there might be a solution to an equation' is a far cry from claiming that 'reality is perfectly comprehensible'.
  • tom
    1.5k
    Mind your temper.Wayfarer

    Pardon me for literally understanding everything.
  • tom
    1.5k
    Yes, necessarily so, because if you don't understand everything, you can't know that everything is understandable.ernestm

    You asked for the proof, you got it.
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    If I bring home six beers and put them in the fridge, and I see my son take three, I 'comprehend perfectly' that there's three left.

    Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?
  • tom
    1.5k
    If I bring home six beers and put them in the fridge, and I see my son take three,Wayfarer

    Six beers, three beers, maybe you are on a different intellectual plane? Hard to tell.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.