What I'm arguing in all of those is that quantum physics has a tendency to undermine scientific realism. — Wayfarer
I would not presume to have a favorite interpretation of a subject in which I am not qualified — Janus
So what's the question again? — Wayfarer
The only definite fact in all of this is that quantum physics undermines realism. — Wayfarer
... the most defensible form of scientific realism
The only definite fact in all of this is that quantum physics undermines realism. — Wayfarer
I don't think so.The only definite fact in all of this is that quantum physics undermines realism. — Wayfarer
Further confusion arises if the two senses are conflated. This can lead to the notion that the condition OD is equivalent to the metaphysical thesis that physical reality exists and possess properties independent of their cognizance by human or other agents. This would be an error, as stochastic theories, on which the outcome of an experiment is not uniquely determined by the physical state of the world prior to the experiment, but is a matter of chance, are perfectly compatible with the metaphysical thesis. One occasionally finds traces of a conflation of this sort in the literature; — Bell’s Theorem: 3.3. On “local realism”
if it didn’t challenge scientific realism — Wayfarer
'd formed the opinion that many worlds interpretation is favoured on Youtube videos but not by actual physicist. — Banno
The only definite fact in all of this is that quantum physics undermines realism. — Wayfarer
But again this is not a fact, since it is only that QM doesn't offer a realistic picture of what seems to be going on, and that is not the same thing as "undermining realism". — Janus
But if it didn’t challenge scientific realism — Wayfarer
Werner Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' challenged centuries of scientific understanding, placed him in direct opposition to Albert Einstein, and put Niels Bohr in the middle of one of the most heated debates in scientific history. Heisenberg's theorem stated that there were physical limits to what we could know about sub-atomic particles; this 'uncertainty' would have shocking implications.
Q: In one of your papers, you mention that Erwin Schrödinger wrote about the Greek influence on our concept of reality, and that it’s a historical contingency that we speak about reality without including the subject — the person doing the speaking. Are you trying to break the spell of Greek thinking?
A: Schrödinger thought that the Greeks had a kind of hold over us — they saw that the only way to make progress in thinking about the world was to talk about it without the “knowing subject” in it. QBism goes against that strain by saying that quantum mechanics is not about how the world is without us; instead it’s precisely about us in the world. The subject matter of the theory is not the world or us but us-within-the-world, the interface between the two.
Q: Does that mean that, as Arthur Eddington put it, the stuff of the world is mind stuff?
A: QBism would say, it’s not that the world is built up from stuff on “the outside” as the Greeks would have had it. Nor is it built up from stuff on “the inside” as the idealists, like George Berkeley and Eddington, would have it. Rather, the stuff of the world is in the character of what each of us encounters every living moment — stuff that is neither inside nor outside, but prior to the very notion of a cut between the two at all.
My fellow QBists and I instead think that what Bell’s theorem really indicates is that the outcomes of measurements are experiences, not revelations of something that’s already there. Of course others think that we gave up on science as a discipline, because we talk about subjective degrees of belief. But we think it solves all of the foundational conundrums.
According to quantum Bayesianism, what traditional physicists got wrong was the naïve belief that there is a fixed, “true” external reality that we perceive “correctly”. Quantum Bayesianism claims that instead, the scientific observer sees the readings on his instrument and understands that they bring him new information pertaining to his mental model of reality. He has abandoned the belief that he is seeing the real world “as it truly is”.
But if it didn’t challenge scientific realism, then there wouldn’t even be a metaphysical question. — Wayfarer
I think it's more the case that quantum physics does not seem to offer a realistic picture of what is going on at the "fundamental" level; but that does not equate to "undermining scientific realism", it' seems more that it just doesn't appear to support it. — Janus
You appear to conflate two difference senses of "realism". In the context of the phrase "scientific realism" it's contrasted with "scientific instrumentalism". Scientific realism says that scientific theories are "true" in the sense that the world is as the theories say, whereas scientific instrumentalism says that our scientific theories are just useful or not. — Michael
I am curious as to whom your "muttered insults" are directed. — Janus
How could we possibly be constantly aware of the stream of thought, when we need to be aware of other things — Janus
None of this makes any sense to me, or accords with my own experience of what is involved in thinking. (...) I cannot see how it is possible to think anything discursive without language. — Janus
That is what I call 'realism', and it has been called into question by these discoveries. — Wayfarer
I note that you've downgraded your claim from "undermining" to "challenging". I'm not sure QM even challenges realism, although I think it's fair to say that some interpretations don't offer a realistic picture of what is going on at the "fundamental" level. I guess you could count that as a challenge for realism if you accept an anti-realist interpretation. — Janus
So we're back to scientific discoveries having an impact on metaphysical theories again. Perhaps now you could explain why the discoveries of cognitive science are excluded from this allowance? — Isaac
For my money, it is not quantum physics that clearly begs for a non-realist metaphysics , but certain approaches within cognitive science — Joshs
Dan Zahavi is a philosopher at University of Copenhagen.
Where are the cognitive scientists you're referring to? — Isaac
The kind of realism that can be called into question by quantum mechanics is that of counterfactual definiteness, which asserts that there are objects and that they have properties even before they are measured. — Michael
It's regrettable that folk used the word "observation" when they meant "measurement".The key realisation arising from quantum physics was the fact that the observer has a direct role in determining the outcome of the observation of purportedly the fundamental building blocks of the world. — Wayfarer
So we don't know stuff unless we have a mind. Well, knowing something is a relation between a fact and a mind, so that's hardly a surprise, and does not need the support of quantum mechanics. And if you would go the step further by claiming that therefore we never know anything, then your are committed to Stove's Gem: we only ever eat oysters with our mouths, and therefore we never eat oysters as they are in themselves... Do you want to do that?My take: mind is nothing objectively existent, there really is no such thing. But we never know anything apart from it. — Wayfarer
All awareness of things just is the stream of thought. — Mww
Fine, no problem. One metaphysical doctrine may be more logically sufficient than another, but it can never be proved as more the fact. — Mww
My experience is:
Since I was a kid, when reading something, I never saw the words, but pictured what the words say. Skim right over the words, like they weren’t even there. — Mww
For my money, it is not quantum physics that clearly begs for a non-realist metaphysics , but certain approaches within cognitive science billing themselves as postmodern. — Joshs
When the observational evidence does not support a particular metaphysical perspective, isn't this a case of undermining that metaphysics? — 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.