What about computers and neutron stars?

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/04/22/why-do-quantum-effects-only-happen-on-the-atomic-scale/

https://phys.org/news/2010-03-physicists-theory-quantum-mechanics-motion.html#nRlv

https://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html#nRlv

https://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-physics-classical-quantum-world.html#nRlv

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-quantum-physics-macroscopic.html

Indeed, what about computers and neutron stars?

It's clear (to me) that some of the effects of quantum uncertainty can be used in the macro world, but in every case I know of, a lot of science and engineering has to be done before those effects can be used; that is, these are indirect effects.

I'm also aware that classical physics is just a very convenient abbreviation of quantum physics, and that quantum physics is the physics of everything, apparently, except gravity.

My problem is with folks who say things like, "I'm sure that there are many forms of realism, however, 'being apart' is a somewhat difficult stance to embrace post-quantum physics. In addition , things are in some quantum state, but it is not clear 'what they are', independent of an observing mind, since this is how we know things."

If this is anything other than rankest nonsense, then, apparently, we cannot know anything until and unless it's observed (by an "observing mind"). Of course neither that mind nor its observations can be known unless they too are observed....

If this is anything other than rankest nonsense, then, apparently, we cannot know anything until and unless it's observed (by an "observing mind"). Of course neither that mind nor its observations can be known unless they too are observed.... — tim wood

And that is the way it is. We know by observing. Observing oneself is sometimes called meditation.

Of course, I'm leaving open the possibility that some people can learn without observation. This would be somewhat akin to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance fields, where hierarchies of life share information via information fields. Are you a fan of this theory? Or do you have your own theory about learning without observation?

An interesting article that addresses some of the philosophical issues in light of quantum theory.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4068017/#__sec3title

Thank you for the sites. Give 'em a read. In sum, they explain why quantum effects are confined to the realm, usually, of the very, very small, and unusually to the realms of the very, very unusual.

Quantum effects on a large scale are always in some way or other unusual in the sense of their being underpinned by a lot of work that allows them to become manifest on a macro-scale: that is, they're indirect effects.

But it's the misuse/misunderstanding of the uncertainty relationship that bothers me ("principle," as in "uncertainty principal," is problematic and controversial, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/).

Folks use it to argue that you cannot be sure, for example, that a brick is a brick, or a horse a horse, because under the quantum physics' uncertainty principle, it might be something else!

Because philosophy, generally, is thinking about how things are thought about, physics' and the other sciences' place or role in philosophy is limited, being mainly regulative in nature, and usually to rein in the excesses of amateur or under-informed philosophers. I'm not sure it's even possible to have scientific philosophy, or philosophic science, Although some scientists are also good scientists and vice versa.

I'm of the opinion that folks who argue that quantum uncertainty has any direct relevance or application to, or effect on, the macro-world, the world of cars, moose, or more generally anything larger than a really small needle point, are simply ignorant and confused - those words meant here in their gentlest sense. — tim wood

Your problem is that before 'quantum nonsense' was discovered, many Leading Scientists were of the view that Science had just about cracked 'the mystery of nature'. It would soon be the case, they averred, that Science would soon be able to tell us what everything is made of, thereby once and for all shoving aside the mutterings of superstitious priests and their ilk, and throwing the whole world into glorious Enlightenment. There was that famous 1894 statement by Michelson (often mistakenly attributed to Kelvin) that 'the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals'.

After all, it was Simon LaPlace, 'France's Newton', who had declared that:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

That was published in 1814. The General Theory of Relativity was published less than a century later; and then after Bohr and Heisenberg's discoveries, Einstein himself was obliged to ask (sarcastically, or so he thought) 'Doesn't the moon continue exist when nobody's looking at it?'

Sigmund Freud remarked that ‘the self-love of mankind has been three times wounded by science’, referring to the Copernican revolution, Darwin’s discovery of evolution, and Nietzsche’s declaration of the Death of God. Maybe in an oblique kind of way, the Copenhagen Interpretation gave back to humanity what the Enlightenment had taken away: by placing consciousness in a pivotal role in the 'construction of reality'. While this is fiercely contested by what Heisenberg termed ‘dogmatic realism’, for better or for worse it has become an established idea in modern cultural discourse; so unfortunately for you, 'quantum nonsense' has now become quite embedded. If you have any doubt, just look for it on Amazon.

Of course, I'm leaving open the possibility that some people can learn without observation. This would be somewhat akin to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance fields, where hierarchies of life share information via information fields. Are you a fan? Or do you have your own theory about learning without observation? — Rich

I think this is a whole other thread. I leave it to you to start it; I just want to get into my armor-plated undies before I join.

I think the entire future of philosophy lies in those who thoroughly study quantum theory and research the philosophical issues raised by quantum theory. Scientists will not Wade into this area. It is not their domain. However the study of role of mind/consciousness in a quantum world can give rise to an entirely new way of looking at ourselves and our relationships particularly in the field of health.

Sigmund Freud remarked that ‘the self-love of mankind has been three times wounded by science’, referring to the Copernican revolution, Darwin’s discovery of evolution, and Nietzsche’s declaration of the Death of God. Maybe in an oblique kind of way, the Copenhagen Interpretation gave back to humanity what the Enlightenment had taken away: by placing consciousness in a pivotal role in the 'construction of reality'. While this is fiercely contested by what Heisenberg termed ‘dogmatic realism’, for better or for worse it has become an established idea in modern cultural discourse; so unfortunately for you, 'quantum nonsense' has now become quite embedded in modern culture. If you have any doubt, just look it up on Amazon. — wayfarer

Indeed! I am no fan of Freud, yet I'm persuaded he was being ironic; to his credit, if he was.

I'm satisfied that the history of science shows that a fair amount of science has a shelf-life after which its value ranges from not much good to no good at all. The worst abuses of quantum uncertainty - see Rich's link from his above post:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4068017/#__sec3title -

are in my opinion whackdoodle stuff. The future may vindicate and validate such views, but, to be plain, I don't think so.

Yikes!

Would you help a poor fellow-communicant out by summarizing that in a short paragraph or two or three?

However the study of role of mind/consciousness in a quantum world can give rise to an entirely new way of looking at ourselves and our relationships particularly in the field of health. — Rich

That's where the new-age woo comes in. I too watched What the Bleep years back, Fred Alan Wolfe was interesting, but all the Californian-style philosophising about 'how to be happy in relationships' was, I thought, complete twaddle.

There is something deeply mysterious about it, but whatever it is, it's not about Feeling Better About Yourself.

I'm persuaded he was being ironic; to his credit, if he was. — tim wood

No, I'm sure he wasn't. He would have absolutely detested the kind of subject we're discussing. Mind you, Freud himself is now a museum piece, consumed by the revolution was part of, like everything else in capitalism.

...the philosophical issues raised by quantum theory. — RIch

All right, now something a little more serous: could you give a short list of any philosophical issues raised by quantum theory? To be distinguished from pseudo-philosophical issues raised by folks with too much time on their hands.

All right, now something a little more serous: could you give a short list of any philosophical issues raised by quantum theory? To be distinguished from pseudo-philosophical issues raised by folks with too much time on their hands. — tim wood

Sorry, I have nothing to say to you. It's just me.

All right, now something a little more serous: could you give a short list of any philosophical issues raised by quantum theory? — tim wood

Challenges the reality of 'mind-independent objects'. That's it.

Two short articles on same.

Quantum Mysticism: Gone but Not Forgotten

What we call 'Reality' is Just a State of Mind.

How. I'm not following, just here.

Irony? Or do you mean that the reality expressed by quantum mechanics appears to invalidate usual and ordinary ways of thinking about, knowing, referring to, ordinary objects - and in particular in ways that have not already been extensively excavated throughout the history of philosophy?

The effect of mind on health is indisputable. Maybe psychologists will be the ones to investigate this phenomenon further (and reap the rewards) and philosophy can continue to be relegated to a study seeking a reason to exist. I don't really care, but younger people may wish to pursue this line of research instead of Socrates. Just trying to open new vistas for those who are tired of the same old same old.

Or do you mean that the reality expressed by quantum mechanics appears to invalidate usual and ordinary ways of thinking about, knowing, referring to, ordinary objects - and in particular in ways that have not already been extensively excavated throughout the history of philosophy? — tim wood

This is more history than philosophy. One of the major themes of the Enlightenment was the 'rejection of metaphysics', right? Metaphysics was associated with religion, and besides, medieval physics was Aristotelian and embedded in the geocentric worldview. So the 'Scientific Revolution' was indeed a revolution, in that it completely demolished the traditional understanding, swept if off the table, and metaphysics with it.

Scientific realism which is the dominant view of the secular intelligentsia, seeks explanations in terms of efficient causes (in Aristotelian terms) or sequences of events which can be solely understood through the techniques of mathematical physics and the like; that is basic to Enlightenment thinking. And that is at the foundation of the modern materialist attitude which is by far the dominant worldview amongst the 'metropolitan intelligentsia'. That is (putting it very simplistically) the basis of naturalism, which seeks natural causes, rather than metaphysical ones.

But, quantum physics does undermine materialism. Why, is the subject of vast literature, far too much to condense into paragraphs, and also great controversies. But a few points - firstly, as Rich pointed out above, 'scientists don't do philosophy' - not quite true, D'Espagnat, whom I referred to, wrote well-regarded books on philosophy and physics. But in my opinion, the physicists who get the most attention about the subject (like Sean Carroll) are philosophically uneducated. D'Espagnat understood Kant; Schrodinger and Heisenberg were both philosophically literate. Most physicists nowadays are not, and besides are engaged by industry and science in commercial or military applications. Meanwhile, the LHC is mired in what some are describing as the nightmare scenario.

So, I think what is happening, is that the metaphysical questions that had been thought of as 'consigned to history' have come roaring back with a vengeance. The anomalies shown up by quantum physics are pointing at the edges or holes in the naturalistic account.

The effect of mind on health is indisputable. — Rich

I perfectly agree, but it is the relationship of that with the topic of the thread that I called into question.

There must be a relationship (mind-body-health) and those with the most creativity and energy will further research and understanding. Once accomplished, mind will once again dominate the field of health research and other practical aspects of life. It may not develop in my lifetime, but that doesn't prevent me from actively using such concepts in practical every day life.

Well, there are philosophical issues raised by quantum mechanics itself: its interpretations in general, and more specifically, things like quantum measurement, counterfactual definiteness, locality, etc. There is this popular Feynman quip oft-cited by philosophy-averse physicists: scientists need philosophy of science like birds need ornithologists. But in point of fact quantum physicists often struggle with these interpretational questions, and having philosophical chops goes some way towards not falling on your ass when trying to answer them.

Then there are broader implications of quantum mechanics for the philosophy of science and metaphysics. Here is just one example, a stimulating article that should stand in contrast to the pretentious cooks against whom you rail: Holism and Nonseparability in Physics.

Thank you for the Stanford article. I find all of them challenging, most of them at least daunting, and many overwhelming - this one in the latter category, for me. I have a rule that stands in as a kind of lifesaver: when it gets complicated, then maybe it's starting to go off the rails, in some way.

Or another way, when meanings and significances seem to multiply, the more that's said, then maybe that's a clue that less should be said, or in extreme cases maybe nothing at all.

The life I lead often seems (to my understanding) a matter of wheels within wheels within wheels. And often the actions of remoter wheels seem to cancel other remote wheels, leaving just the overall tendencies of the larger wheels.

Quantum physics seems at the moment an exercise about remoter wheels - indeed the maths of it say so! But you're right; I just rail against those that would make larger wheels of the lesser than they can possibly be.