My impression was that there was a lot of speculation about physics and the meaning of quantum matters on this site, with members holding a diversity of views on the matter - from wild and pointless speculations to scientism. Seems to me at some point until recently when (truth and Christianity seemed to take over) members often employed QM or speculative and theoretical physics as a springboard to posit a veritable cosmos of transcendent possibilities.

For my own part, the subject is only of interest to see what others do with it. I am not a physicist.

In the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci, asks, "What Does It Mean To 'Interpret' Quantum Mechanics?" In the early days of Quantum Theory, some Hard-line scientists have been known to claim that there's no need to "make sense" of quantum queerness, as long as the mathematical models work reliably. Hence, they denigrated any rational or metaphorical attempts "to attach physical interpretations to the equations : the math is all there is, the rest is a waste of time . Philosophy, if you will".

But, over the years, that professional smugness seems to have been shaken by their inability to reconcile QT with Classical Physics. A 2017 international survey of physicist's attitudes on "foundational issues" *1 revealed that "the shut-up and calculate school is in the minority, at only 23 percent". — Gnomon

Here is a graph summarizing the results of a survey of physicist's opinions of the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics:



This is from "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics" published in 2013. The results are very similar to the article you referenced. Here's a link to the article:

https://phys.org/news/2013-01-survey-physicists-fundamental-quantum-mechanics.html

The graph shows that the Copenhagen interpretation was chosen by 42% of the physicists surveyed. Generally, the Copenhagen interpretation is considered equivalent to the shut-up-and-calculate one, although I guess there is some lack of clarity on that. No other interpretation comes close. That doesn't mean it's the correct interpretation, but I think you misrepresented what physicists think in your post.

Then he says "Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics". — Gnomon

For me, this is the heart of the matter. I have always thought this is a good way of looking QM, with one difference. In my view, if it's true that there is no empirical way of selecting among the interpretations, then the interpretations are either metaphysics or they are meaningless. If an interpretation adds value, if it is useful, then it is metaphysics. If it doesn't, if it isn't, it's meaningless. For me, adding value or being useful means that the interpretation clarifies existing science, gives insight into possible fruitful new science, or raises important questions. If all it does is make us feel good or reduce our anxiety, then it's meaningless.

Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon

That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject.

What defines knowledge is that you can act on it. It is pragmatic. It is a model of reality that results in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion.

So what does it mean that there are a whole bunch of QM interpretations that try to demystify its mathematical success in one way or another?

Well, the thing they all have in common is that they want to assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics – the classical view which is founded on determinism, composition and locality.

This simply shows the prevailing metaphysics in scientific circles is out of step with the prevailing physics. Or at least it was in the 1930s or whenever the popular choices were being framed.

The maths worked, the metaphysics couldn't keep up. It was stuck trying to assimilate a new world to its old maps. That left folk trying to rescue determinism and locality by whatever it took – whether that was Copenhagenism, Many Worlds, or whatever.

So the interpretations industry just made the metaphysical plight worse in trying to drag things backwards to a simpler view of the world.

But these days it is catching up as folk come to accept that cherished elements of reality such as determinism, compossibility and locality are emergent features of a quantum reality rather than foundational features of a classical reality.

When I label my own philosophical "interpretations" of the quantum foundations of reality as "Meta-Physics", I often receive finger-pointing accusations of promoting "woo", or if especially offensive to the poster's belief system, as "woo-woo". — Gnomon

But that is understandable. While most official quantum interpretations just want to assimilate its mathematical structures to a classical metaphysics perspective, the woo-merchants are trying to assimilate them to their romantic notions about mind and spirit. The metaphysical grounding ain't even classical, but animistic or theistic.

But these days it is catching up as folk come to accept that cherished elements of reality such as determinism, compossibility and locality are emergent features of a quantum reality rather than foundational features of a classical reality. — apokrisis

This is a good way of describing the situation, but I can't figure out what you mean by "compossibility." I looked it up but I'm still confused.

So what does it mean that there are a whole bunch of QM interpretations that try to demystify its mathematical success in one way or another?

Well, the thing they all have in common is that they want to assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics – the classical view which is founded on determinism, composition and locality.

This simply shows the prevailing metaphysics in scientific circles is out of step with the prevailing physics. Or at least it was in the 1930s or whenever the popular choices were being framed. — apokrisis

Is it firmly established that there is no empirical difference between the interpretations?

Here is a graph summarizing the results of a survey of physicist's opinions of the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics: — T Clark

It's interesting that the survey showed zero percent in favor of a transactional approach. I seem to recall that one of the few actual physicists on TPF, Kenosha Kid, argued for that.

Compossibility

:100:

Re: Calling out one of TPF's Quantum Woo Crew ...

Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum.
— Gnomon

That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject — T Clark

:clap: :up:

Generally, the Copenhagen interpretation is considered equivalent to the shut-up-and-calculate one, although I guess there is some lack of clarity on that. — T Clark

It runs the gamut from "shut up and read the dials" instrumentalism to "consciousness causes the collapse – as that is the only place we can find a collapse". So it is a rather comfy fit for all views.

If an interpretation adds value, if it is useful, then it is metaphysics. If it doesn't, if it isn't, it's meaningless. — T Clark

I agree that multiple interpretations seems a sign that nothing has leapt out of the pack in way that has advanced the actual physics. But then again, there has been a story in the way attempts to assimilate QM to classical notions – as with EPR and Bell's inequality – have led to ever more subtle experimental evidence in support of nonlocality and indeterminacy.

So the interpretations have been eating away at their own believability and demanding that greater metaphysical paradigm shift in my view.

New voices like Emily Adlam are making that case.

I can't figure out what you mean by "compossibility. — T Clark

Hah. That’s Leibniz. I mean the possibility of being composed. So atomism. The idea that all existence can be constructed ground up from elemental being. Another core ontic commitment of classical metaphysics.

Is it firmly established that there is no empirical difference between the interpretations? — T Clark

I’d say it is more that none of them - familiar at a popular science level of discussion - are well enough defined to be put to a sharp test. They are mostly a means to explain away rather than explain.

But as I say, the focus seems to be tightening. Bohmian mechanics has fallen right off the charts as a relativistic version couldn’t be produced. And folk are saying it is all very well accepting spatial nonlocality, but your interpretation needs to accept temporal nonlocality too.

It's interesting that the survey showed zero percent in favor of a transactional approach. — jgill

Yep. But as framed by Cramer, it was still rather clunky feeling. It needs a whole new definition of time as something thermally emergent. So not the classical notion of time as an unbroken symmetry but the evolving block universe kind of view where you would have true temporal nonlocality, but the saving grace is that the nonlocal aspect is left with so little to do.

The retrocausality would be minimal - like tiny “wrong way” eddies in a powerful forward temporal flow. The future could constrain the past as a running adjustment on a wavefunction. But the tilting of the odds becomes less and less as the state of the universe grows more and more thermally decohered.

When things are hot, anything could happen. As things cool right down, what could happen becomes highly constrained - if also still entangled at the wavefunction level.

I agree that multiple interpretations seems a sign that nothing has leapt out of the pack in way that has advanced the actual physics. But then again, there has been a story in the way attempts to assimilate QM to classical notions – as with EPR and Bell's inequality – have led to ever more subtle experimental evidence in support of nonlocality and indeterminacy.

So the interpretations have been eating away at their own believability and demanding that greater metaphysical paradigm shift in my view. — apokrisis

Seems then that the various interpretations have been useful, even if only as annoying gnats or mosquitos that have to be swatted away. By the standard I proposed, that would mean that it might be reasonable to consider them metaphysics rather than meaningless. Yes, I know, I know. Who really cares? Well... I do.

Seems then that the various interpretations have been useful, even if only as annoying gnats or mosquitos that have to be swatted away. — T Clark

Yeah. Folk had to have a go at assimilating the quantum weirdness to conventional classical metaphysics as the first step. Nothing wrong about that.

Then they had to refine their thinking about what essentially had to change.

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing.

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis

:smirk: :up:

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing.
— apokrisis
:smirk: :up: — 180 Proof

You are so subtle. So kind. Not.

members often employed QM or speculative and theoretical physics as a springboard to posit a veritable cosmos of transcendent possibilities.
For my own part, the subject is only of interest to see what others do with it. I am not a physicist. — Tom Storm

I too am not a physicist, So anything I say about Quantum Physics on a philosophy forum should not be taken as an authoritative pronouncement on physical Science. As non-credentialed laymen, we're not revealing confirmed facts on TPF; just sharing ideas & opinions about open questions that have not been answered definitively by empirical methods. As Piggliucci said, some of them "smell like metaphysics". If professional scientists feel free to speculate on transcendent non-empirical possibilities (beyond space-time, or immaterial mathematical simulations), why should amateur philosophers feel bound to solid ground?

Some of the diffident posters on TPF -- bowing to supreme Science -- seem to think "feckless" philosophy should be limited to the self-imposed empirical rules of physical Science. Hence, even professional philosophers like Pigliucci have no right to philosophize beyond the current state of scientific knowledge. Ironically, some of the popular interpretations that the Foundational Issues survey listed are literally ascientific explorations of "transcendent possibilities". So as I said above, "according to the survey, it seems that I'm in good company, along with credentialed scientists who postulate such ascientific (philosophical) notions as Many Worlds, Multiverses, and pre-big-bang Inflation".

As Pigliucci noted, the current state of Quantum Physics and Cosmology is anything but "settled science". So, I don't feel so cowed by the technological prowess of Physical Science, that I cannot have a little fun with transcendent possibilities. My own area of interest ("favorite interpretation") is primarily item "e" in TClark's graphic : Information Theoretical. And that subject matter gets dangerously close to forbidden territory of Mind & Consciousness. Even the sober scientists studying IIT, admit to the "strong possibility" of New Agey Panpsychism. :gasp:


Feckless : weak, ineffective, incompetent, futile

Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon
That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject. — T Clark

Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? Do you have relevant accreditation to verify that your own "opinions are credible" on the subject of Philosophical Diffidence (deferring to Science on philosophical questions), and Foundational Questions of Physics? Based on what expertise do you label an expression of laymanship to be "facile"? Just askin'. :smile:

PS__The quote above sounds like a good example of "philosophical diffidence" : e.g. non-professional TPF posters have no right to comment on physical topics. Just stick to your facile logic-chopping.


Facile : (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Laymanship :a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field "For a layman, he knows a lot about the law."

Philosophical Logic Chopping : Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Logic-Chopping

Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? — Gnomon

Certainly not. However, the agora's "minimum requirement" seems to me two-fold: (A) to recognize and acknowledge what one does not know and (B) to give non-fallacious reasons (i e. valid arguments) supporting what one thinks one knows in ways which are open to non-trivial criticisms – dialectics (e.g. Socrates / Adorno; not Hegel). Absent this, IME, there's nothing but sophistry or pseudo-philosophizing (e.g. pseudo-science) at most. "Professional credentials', etc in some specialized instances may be necessary but they are rarely, if ever, sufficient for thinking – especially where intellectual integrity and corrigibility are lacking. :eyes:

Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? Do you have relevant accreditation to verify that your own "opinions are credible" on the subject of Philosophical Diffidence (deferring to Science on philosophical questions), and Foundational Questions of Physics? — Gnomon

This is not an outsider science forum or any kind of science forum at all for that matter. If the world were consistent, wild-eyed trips into pseudo-science would not be allowed. As it is, though, the moderators allow quite a bit, including much of what you write. I don't have any particular desire for them to crack down, but from time to time I find myself wanting to at least note that a chicken is not a fish.

Here is a summary of the argument you have presented in this discussion, as I understand it:

• Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are controversial.
• Qualified scientists can't agree on the proper interpretations or even if any interpretation is needed or possible.
• Based on this, a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics says "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics."
• Based on that confusion and lack of consensus, Gnomon is justified in any speculation he makes about quantum mechanics or related metaphysics.

I don't have any particular desire for them to crack down, but from time to time I find myself wanting to at least note that a chicken is not a fish — T Clark

:up: :up:

Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon

The problem here I believe is that the goal of a forum ought to be to express some collective wisdom rather than provide a platform for personal opinion.

Of course, a crowd is made up of its voices. But that is why philosophy, science, or any other intellectual activity aims to be a community of inquirers. There has to be a conversation that seems to be going somewhere collectively useful. A discourse has its history. And its importance is measured by the degree it comes to constrain unbridled "personal opinion".

So freedom of speech is essential to an intellectual community. But then so is the collective view that comes to shape discourse within that community.

It is a two way street. And I would say that is how folk judge participation. This is the sociology in play as people seek to norm behaviour.

I have no orthodoxy to be held accountable to. — Gnomon

That sounds like an exciting position in life. Until you try to put it into practice. Have you ever been to speaker's corner in Hyde Park? Crackpots ranting from soapboxes as public entertainment? A sad sight.

The wonderful thing about orthodoxy is that it gives you something solid to react against. You learn everything you know by engaging with it on its own terms.

Orthodoxy exists to hold you to account. And that is how you could even participate in the growth of knowledge and collective reasonableness.

Crackpots want all the glory for doing none of the work. That's a very different mindset.

The problem here I believe is that the goal of a forum ought to be to express some collective wisdom rather than provide a platform for personal opinion.

Have you ever been to speaker's corner in Hyde Park? Crackpots ranting from soapboxes as public entertainment? A sad sight.

Crackpots want all the glory for doing none of the work. — apokrisis

:100: :fire:

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis

But the problem is that in QM the "evidence" lead to a deadend so far.The actual theory itself is schocking and mind blowing to what we already knew about nature.And that's the reason generating so many different interpretations.And such no surprise that many of these "crackpots" are actually well known scientists.So I don't think is easy to distinguish them.Except from "extreme cases of crackpotters".

By the way, i remember how surprised (not to say schocked) I felt when i first read that the dominate interpretation in QM is Coppenchangen's.
That consciousness affects the results.Mind interferes matter.That's actually pure metaphysics!
And I never expected that the majority of scientists would hold such a metaphysical-idealistic view.

I don't have the scientific knowledge to judge if it is right or wrong but still till these days i m surprised from the acceptance it has among scientific society.
For sure though, QM theory gave a huge boost to idealism at its "eternal fight" against materialism.

A really interesting notion to T Clark's poll is also the second preferable interpretation.I didnt know that "Information theory" had so many supporters.Interesting.

what does it mean that there are a whole bunch of QM interpretations that try to demystify its mathematical success in one way or another?

Well, the thing they all have in common is that they want to assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics – the classical view which is founded on determinism, composition and locality.

This simply shows the prevailing metaphysics in scientific circles is out of step with the prevailing physics — apokrisis

Isnt the relevant question, who in particular wants to, as you say, assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics? What if it turned out that a majority of the key players in the development of current QM thinking were in this category? Would we have any justification in claiming that they are failing to grasp the correct metaphysics? There is a cottage industry of philosophers wanting to assimilate QM to their favored philosophical foundation , but could there be any arbiter better suited to determine what sort of metaphysical foundation is implicated by QM than one of its inventors? What is the metaphysical underpinning of Newtonian mechanics? Isn’t Newton’s own metaphysics writing an excellent source?

But the problem is that in QM the "evidence" lead to a deadend so far.The actual theory itself is schocking and mind blowing to what we already knew about nature.And that's the reason generating so many different interpretations.And such no surprise that many of these "crackpots" are actually well known scientists.So I don't think is easy to distinguish them.Except from "extreme cases of crackpotters". — dimosthenis9

I wasn't talking about QM interpretations. These are all ways of trying to make ontological sense of mathematical algorithms. All the players are tightly constrained to stay within the maths, but allowed to be free as they like with their ontologies.

It's not crackpot because it is a useful community exercise. It has progressed. If your ontology demanded hidden variables, then Bell's inequality should have eliminated it. If your ontology applies only to QM and not QFT, again you have fallen off the back of the pack.

This doesn't look like a deadend. It looks more like a serious conversation about the most difficult of things.

By the way, i remember how surprised (not to say schocked) I felt when i first read that the dominate interpretation in QM is Coppenchangen's.
That consciousness affects the results.Mind interferes matter.That's actually pure metaphysics! — dimosthenis9

That is now the least supported version of Copenhagenism. It's not a general belief but rather it highlights the fact that what is missing from the formalism of QM is how actual measurements can get made when the observer is also part of the system.

Decoherence gives a pragmatic mathematical answer now. But again that is maths lacking a clear ontology. You still don't know where to place the epistemic cut – the division between the observer and the observed – in a generally agreed sense. This fact is dramatised by taking the options to either ontic extreme. Either the physical wavefunction collapse is somehow caused by the human mind, or there is no physical collapse, which results in the equally ludicrous outcome of there being "Many Worlds".

You don't have to believe either of these interpretations. But it is useful to know that these are logically the two most extreme choices available. They define the spectrum of possibility when it comes to locating the epistemic cut.

And now decoherence is here to say we really ought to start focusing on the actual thermal scale where the world looks to transition between its quantum weirdness and classical determinism.

Given that step forward in the debate, Copenhagenism and Many Worlds – in their matchingly extreme forms – should both be fading out fast. We should now know just where to look to find the intersection between classical observers and their quantum realities.

Isnt the relevant question, who in particular wants to, as you say, assimilate QM to a more familiar everyday metaphysics? What if it turned out that a majority of the key players in the development of current QM thinking were in this category? Would we have any justification in claiming that they are failing to grasp the correct metaphysics? There is a cottage industry of philosophers wanting to assimilate QM to their favored philosophical foundation , but could there be any arbiter better suited to determine what sort of metaphysical foundation is implicated by QM than one of its inventors? What is the metaphysical underpinning of Newtonian mechanics? Isn’t Newton’s own metaphysics writing an excellent source? — Joshs

You are treating this like some kind of cultural power struggle. But that is a bad lens for understanding the sociology at play in the scientific community.

Newton did set this ball rolling. He put together the metaphysics of atomism and the mathematics of differential equations. The result was the natural philosophy of mechanics.

And even QM fits that mould mathematically. Particle mechanics was switched out for wave mechanics. Real numbers were switched out for complex numbers.

So as a community project, it was a natural extension of the metaphysics of mechanics ... having to then make concessions on the key tenets of that metaphysics as it progressed.

For example, determinism became wrapped up in the wavefunction, and so what was determined was now some set of probabilities.

The wavefunction also looked to exist outside the space and time it modelled. Hence it spoke about the local from a nonlocal view.

But even this is not so unacceptable given that Newtonianism already had its own similar deep interpretive issues. To believe in his version of gravity, you had to have some kind of spooky action at a distance. You had to believe also in a spooky action at a temporal distance as all material trajectories were regulated by the least action principle. Not to mention you had to believe in space and time as backdrop that was empty of action or dynamics.

Good old fashion mechanics is also deeply weird if you delve into its metaphysics. Atomism seemed pretty crackpot back in Ancient Greece for a reason.

So this is the context. If you are in the business of science like the quantum pioneers, you know that mechanics works. And you know it already builds in a weirdness of the kind any lay person would object to if they had ever understood it properly.

And if your job is to continue with what works, then developing the same general mathematical approach – suitably vamped up with wave mechanics, complex number magic and probabilistic determinism, etc – is what you do. Yes, this leads to troubling metaphysical weirdness. But it is also mostly just picking the other option in terms of what defines weird.

Is the Cosmos a void or a plenum? Newtonianism says a fixed and eternal void. QFT says a plastic and evolving plenum.

Is it a problem that QM is nonlocal? Well not so much if Newtonianism already demands acceptance of the spooky principle of least action and QFT built that right in as its path integral metaphysics.

So from the outside, you can paint it as being a bunch of simple-minded realists suddenly running into the quicksand of their own mathematical formalisms.

But from the inside, it is about making community judgements about what you take as your general truths and thus what defines your counterfactual evidence.

You can't doubt everything at once. And it has worked to suspend doubt about certain core principles. After a few hundred years of spectacular success, you might even risk talking in public as if the core principles are ontological facts rather than epistemic assumptions.

However those working on the foundations of physics ought to be as familiar with the weirdness buried in Newtonianism as the weirdness appearing in quantum mechanics. And to the degree this is simply a swapping of one kind of weirdness for its dialectical other, then it is business as usual. You just adopt the opposite axiom.

Or more ambitiously, the collective inquiry can turn to the goal of tidying up the metaphysics of both Newtonianism and QM. Not to mention relativity and quantum gravity.

Mechanics itself needs a proper metaphysical foundation. Atomism was always just the convenient story that fitted with a particular mathematics.

So from my own point of view, my own interests, QM interpretations are a part of that much bigger adventure. Which also drags it back towards metaphysics as the conversation to be had. What ontology can have both the classical and the quantum as its dichotomous faces?

All the players are tightly constrained to stay within the maths, but allowed to be free as they like with their ontologies. — apokrisis

Nice.

This doesn't look like a deadend. It looks more like a serious conversation about the most difficult of things. — apokrisis

Well even if you name it serious conversation (and truly is) still it is born from the deadend to explain/figure out what these observations in QM means for nature,so far at least.

That is now the least supported version of Copenhagenism. — apokrisis

You mean now in 2022 after that survey right?Well then i would call that a progress.So which is the dominate interpretation now?Decoherence?

is how actual measurements can get made when the observer is also part of the system. — apokrisis

Plus the technology machine that is used for that measurement , which is also part of the system.

You still don't know where to place the epistemic cut – the division between the observer and the observed – in a generally agreed sense. — apokrisis

Exactly.Where the line is drawn.

We should now know just where to look to find the intersection between classical observers and their quantum realities. — apokrisis

Hmm..Do we know indeed?

What defines knowledge is that you can act on it. It is pragmatic. It is a model of reality that results in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion.

But that is understandable. While most official quantum interpretations just want to assimilate its mathematical structures to a classical metaphysics perspective, the woo-merchants are trying to assimilate them to their romantic notions about mind and spirit. The metaphysical grounding ain't even classical, but animistic or theistic. — apokrisis

Is that your official definition as an accredited expert on knowledge-in-general? Or is that just your layman's opinion on a debatable question? Can you give an example of "knowledge" you have contributed to this forum that has "resulted in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion"? What "official quantum interpretation" do you accept as authoritative & definitive for settling differences of opinion on The Philosophy Forum?

Are you a credentialed expert on "woo mongering"? Or are you just placing a prejudical label on ideas that offend your personal belief system? What formal rules of evidence do you use to formulate your confidently expressed personal opinion? Can you cite book, chapter & verse to support your "interpretation" of "animistic or theistic woo". Or is it just juvenile schoolyard name-calling? Why should we accept your scientistic booing as "knowledge"?

The OP, and Pigliucci's Skeptical Inquirer article, were motivated by such knee-jerk responses to quantum & metaphysical topics, that are characteristic of philosophical diffidence toward the absolute authority of Supreme Science. Ironically, they are, in my personal experience, expressed boldly & concisely, in a manner similar to the well-rehearsed creed-doctrines of Ideologies & religions (e.g. Scientism). But, as a non-believer, I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of Physics or Metaphysics. :cool:

Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional.
http://sociology.morrisville.edu/readings/STS101/Philosophy-TheoryOfKnowledge%20-%20flattened.pdf
Note -- which category do we discuss on this forum?

Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Are you a credentialed expert on "woo mongering"? — Gnomon

As a science writer I was indeed professionally engaged in delving into varieties of woo mongering in the 1990s, from psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence, to all sorts.

So this was woo at the academic level - professors with labs. :grin:

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis

What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time? Historically, the gathering evidence for anthropic initial settings made the BBT sound too much like a Creation Event. So, cosmologists went in search of plausible explanations for such large-scale organized structures that could be accidental, instead of intentional. :smile:


Evidence for cosmic inflation wanes
The biggest result in cosmology in a decade fades into dust
https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-cosmic-inflation-wanes

Cosmic Inflation :
It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

SPECULATION INTO THE TIME BEFORE TIME

Here is a summary of the argument you have presented in this discussion, as I understand it:

Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are controversial.
1. Qualified scientists can't agree on the proper interpretations or even if any interpretation is needed or possible.
2. Based on this, a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics says "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics."
3. Based on that confusion and lack of consensus, Gnomon is justified in any speculation he makes about quantum mechanics or related metaphysics. — T Clark

Unstated assumptions : Speculation Bad! Metaphysics Bad!

Did you omit a prejudicial step, in your logical calculation of that damning conclusion from an unfavorable reading of the OP? Would you apply such biased reasoning (sophistry) to Massimo Pigliucci, too. In the Skeptical Inquirer article, he implied that he has had accusing fingers pointing at him. Following your logic, you could conclude that, " based on that confusion and lack of consensus" Pigliucci "is justified in any speculation . . . ." Not so easy to denigrate "a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics", is it?

Do you think the forum moderators should ban all posts that can be labeled by detractors as "metaphysics"? Should they change the name from The Philosophy Forum to The Empirical Science Forum, or perhaps the Anti-Meta-Physics Forum? What credible topics would we talk about? The possibility of creating a man-made black-hole universe in an atom smasher? Or is that too speculative? Where is the "evidence"? :smile:

Note -- TC, Generally, you seem to be more open-minded toward debatable ideas than the zealous "Anti-Woo Boo-Crew". So, I apologize if anything in this post sounds like a personal attack. It's hard to respond to smears without getting sh*t on your hands.


At Scientia Salon, philosopher Massimo Pigliucci admits to “always having had a troubled relationship with metaphysics.” He summarizes the reasons that have, over the course of his career, made it difficult for him to take the subject seriously. Surprisingly -- given that Pigliucci is, his eschewal of metaphysics notwithstanding, a professional philosopher -- none of these reasons is any good. Or rather, this is not surprising at all, since there simply are no good reasons for dismissing metaphysics -- and could not be, given that all purported reasons for doing so themselves invariably embody unexamined metaphysical assumptions. Thus, as Gilson famously observed, does metaphysics always bury its undertakers.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/03/pigliucci-on-metaphysics.html

Is the Big Bang a black hole? :
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html

As a science writer I was indeed professionally engaged in delving into varieties of woo mongering in the 1990s, from psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence, to all sorts.
So this was woo at the academic level - professors with labs. :grin: — apokrisis

Good for you! Does that professional "engagement" with word-processing certify your authority to label people's opinions with the technical term "woo". Did that "n*gger" word come from Physics or Psychology or Popular Science? Historically, Racists have justified their prejudice with scientific evidence. They too, "engaged" in propagating personal repugnance disguised as scientific facts.

How do you dismiss the opinions of professional physicists & neurologists, and cosmologists, some with labs, who entertain fringey notions of "psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence". Their opinions are all over the internet, for those inclined to look. And they too, face institutional discrimination based on philosophical prejudice. Maybe "woo-boo" is actually a contest of political ideologies, not impartial Science. :cool:

The Ideology of Racism : Misusing Science to Justify Racial Discrimination :
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/ideology-racism-misusing-science-justify-racial-discrimination

What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time?

The biggest result in cosmology in a decade fades into dust — Gnomon

Inflation is still an open question. Observation has indeed ruled out a large class of models now. Guth's own version died almost immediately as it would have left very visible domain walls. Slow roll inflation followed by reheating is the current story.

I myself was very keen to see inflation turn out wrong as it seemed too much of an extra complication. But I've had to change my mind – in terms of what I expect, rather than what I believe – as, for many reasons, the logic is pretty strong that a scalar field had to have stretched the spacetime metric very flat.

The fact that Universe is incredibly flat, and yet it doesn't have a balanced critical mass budget until you let dark energy take care of that problem at the back end (after inflation has taken care of it at the front end), has become an evidence-backed finding.

So that is the constraint that cosmological interpretations have to operate under. Inflation changes from being a complication it would be nice to just cut out of the old story of GUT symmetry breaking (where mass and gravity could start out in perfect critical balance after a Planck scale symmetry breaking) to being the simplest way to get around a critical mass story that now has its three disparate components of matter, dark matter and dark energy.

At least inflation and dark energy could be both the same thing now.

But anyhow, the way you throw the 2014 revision of the Bicep data into the conversation as some kind of "gotcha" is indicative of how little you are aware of the constraints on the conversation to be had. It shows you don't really know what you are talking about.

The question the kindly professional might then ask, well, is this guy interested in learning? Or does he just have a bee in his bonnet?