But on the other hand, who cares? Sure, you do and I do and a bunch of other dorks do. — T Clark
do you think are reasonable speculations in relation to QM? Do you think it can point to idealism? — Tom Storm
If by "real" you are referring to counterfactual definiteness then Bell's theorem says that either counterfactual definiteness or locality (no "spooky action at a distance") are false.
The Nobel Prize in Physics is being awarded this year to three scientists who have shown locality to be false.
I don't yet know of any experiments that have shown counterfactual definiteness to be false. — Michael
It says in the article that their experiments showed entanglement. I thought that meant that they showed non-locality. Are you saying that entanglement under the Copenhagen interpretation can be local? — Michael
↪apokrisis Out of interest, what do you think are reasonable speculations in relation to QM? Do you think it can point to idealism? — Tom Storm
Thanks. So you, Banno, and others come crowding on to these kinds of threads to show that you don’t take deep and interesting questions seriously. You know better because you haven’t learnt either the physics or the metaphysics. Ignorance of the subject matter becomes your trump card.
C’mon. You can do better than that. — apokrisis
It's just not the case that something odd is happening at the small scale, but this has no bearing on the way we conceptualize the universe as a whole. — frank
This isn't an idealism vs. realism debate. You're right that much of that debate takes place outside the realm of science, but that could very well change in the next century, so let's not imagine that we've reached the pinnacle of understanding. We haven't. We're just somewhere on the trail. — frank
One of the points I've beaten till it's black and blue is that metaphysics is not universal. We don't need a one-size-fits-all universal metaphysical foundation. For me, metaphysics should be applied piecemeal. It's a tool to help with thinking and understanding - a tool box. When you're doing reductionist science, maybe pull out the materialism and realism. When it's math, pull out the idealism. When you're trying to see how it all fits together, you might need holism or even mysticism. — T Clark
As I understand it, metaphysics and science are different kinds of things. One is the ground, foundation, of the other, especially if we include epistemology in with the metaphysics. Given that view, metaphysics and science will never meld into each other. — T Clark
There is a kind of metaphysics which is just language on holiday. It's fun to follow its convoluted paths, but it's ultimately pointless. — frank
Newton worked within a framework of absolute space and time that we now know isn't real. — frank
QM says some of our assumptions about reality have to be wrong. — frank
The first ontologists were doing speculative physics. The two have already melded. There is a kind of metaphysics which is just language on holiday. It's fun to follow its convoluted paths, but it's ultimately pointless. Science is almost never pointless, so we might draw a distinction between that pointless kind of metaphysics and science. — frank
QM says that things work differently at small scale than they do up here where we are. — T Clark
But your body and brain depend on being able to harness quantum chemistry. Life and mind start at the quasi-classical nanoscale of molecular machines where proteins can beat the classical odds by employing quantum tricks. — apokrisis
I think you are just too dismissive of the quantum realm. It is how there could even be the classical realm as its “other”. — apokrisis
It is crazy that nature even exists in one form. It is doubly crazy that a second form hatches emergently from that. It is triply crazy that even the quantum form has to be emergent - or at least that is an implication of the success of quantum field theory.
So stand back and marvel of all that we have discovered - some of it only very recently. — apokrisis
Opportunity to quote Ryle's quip, on being elected Waynflete Professor of Metaphysics, that a chair in metaphysics is like a chair in tropical diseases — doesn't mean you're supposed to be in favor of it. — Srap Tasmaner
I do. I marvel all the time. — T Clark
Actually (objectivity) does require we all see the same thing... — Darkneos
Interesting (I guess 'analytical') approach. :chin:For me, metaphysics should be applied piecemeal. It's a tool to help with thinking and understanding - a tool box. When you're doing reductionist science, maybe pull out the materialism and realism. When it's math, pull out the idealism. When you're trying to see how it all fits together, you might need holism or even mysticism. — T Clark
No doubt true of cataphatic "anti-metaphysics".The desire to reject metaphysics is itself what must manifest metaphysics as the “other” which has been placed at the greatest possible distance. — apokrisis
Why?
Sitting opposite each other at table, you see the fork on the left, I see it on the right.
Are you saying that because we see it differently, there is no "objective" statement as to the position of the fork?
But that's not right. — Banno
But your body and brain depend on being able to harness quantum chemistry. Life and mind start at the quasi-classical nanoscale of molecular machines where proteins can beat the classical odds by employing quantum tricks.
So without the ability to harness things like quantum tunneling, enzymes and respiratory chains wouldn’t work. Photosynthesis wouldn’t exist. Sensory receptors would be impossible.
I think you are just too dismissive of the quantum realm. It is how there could even be the classical realm as its “other”.
It is crazy that nature even exists in one form. It is doubly crazy that a second form hatches emergently from that. It is triply crazy that even the quantum form has to be emergent - or at least that is an implication of the success of quantum field theory.
So stand back and marvel of all that we have discovered - some of it only very recently. — apokrisis
If by "real" you are referring to counterfactual definiteness then Bell's theorem says that either counterfactual definiteness or locality (no "spooky action at a distance") are false.
The Nobel Prize in Physics is being awarded this year to three scientists who have shown locality to be false.
I don't yet know of any experiments that have shown counterfactual definiteness to be false. — Michael
But just not at the metaphysics of being apparently. So why hang around these threads to tell folk that? — apokrisis
The logic of the dialectic is so strong, nothing escapes it. The desire to reject metaphysics is itself what must manifest metaphysics as the “other” which has been placed at the greatest possible distance. — apokrisis
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.