It seems to me you both make valid points. — 180 Proof

My post wasn't intended as real criticism. I was just giving you crap.

bellicosity is probably better. — Jamal

"Bellicosity" means you're an asshole, "Bellicism" means you're an asshole on principle.

bellicism — javi2541997

Bellicism - The policy or practice of resorting to war even when it is not necessary and is avoidable.

You've taught me a new word. Thanks.

skirting around my back in an attempt to influence others to ignore and ostracize another member is cowardly. — NOS4A2

The only thing I'm afraid of is putting more wood on the NOS4A2 fire.

Do you think I do not believe what I am writing? — NOS4A2

It's clear you believe what you're writing.

The point of exposing my beliefs here, rather than some echo chamber, is to have them exposed to criticism. — NOS4A2

But you don't respond to that criticism honestly. You just deny the value of the evidence and cynically reject all sources that don't agree with you.

Thus, the need for philosophical interpretation of spooky quantum results led phycisists to include the experimenter's subconscious preconceptions & intentions as a force to be reckoned with : The Observer Effect*1. — Gnomon

The possible role of observation in "collapsing the wavefunction" or whatever is a completely different phenomenon than the observer effect.

"if quantum mechanics really does provide the most fundamental description of nature, then at some level it must incorporate an account of consciousness and other key mental properties". — Gnomon

That's exactly what I meant when I said

I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark

Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory. It describes aspects of our world. Our world includes consciousness. That doesn't mean there is a specific, direct connection between QM and consciousness.

most transformative figure in the history of the United States — NOS4A2

Yes... well...

we can talk about T Clark’s poetry? — NOS4A2

Hey! That's some damn good poetry.

I think it's important in a democratic environment to keep the discussion going, to hear out the other side, and respond to them. — GRWelsh

I've looked at some of your posts. They are thoughtful and well written. My problem is that responding to Nos4a2's posts just gives him an audience even when he refuses to argue in good faith.

Maybe because the truth matters. — Fooloso4

Giving an audience to someone who does not engage in good faith with the argument is not defending the truth.

Because ignoring someone is a very disrespectful act. — javi2541997

I have no problem with responding, especially if you have been specifically addressed. It's just that for most, it's just the same arguments over and over again. They'll give their argument. Nos4a2 will say "nunh unh."

↪Benkei :up: — 180 Proof

Hey, you can't agree with both @Benkei and me, can you? We are disagreeing with each other.

Because leaving his bullshit uncontested on a public forum could raise the idea with casual visitors it's a valid position. That's the only reason I ever reply to him. — Benkei

But all of you are just making the same arguments over and over again and he is not being responsive. He doesn't engage with the argument, just blows it off. After a few respectful responses, anything more is just giving him an audience. He knows his opinions are not popular and he comes looking for a fight.

I am not a big fan of noir novels, — javi2541997

Isn't Mishima a noir character? Shakespearian? A dark, brooding, ambiguous figure?

The important point is that the motivator has personal a base, not a relation to something external like "duty". — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with this.

"Duty" is better described as a director of action rather than a motivator of action. A person with no sense of duty might still be highly motivated to act. So if you want to talk about "duty", you ought to be able to make this distinction, between being motivated to act, ambitious, and being directed in your actions by some sort of sense of duty. Then we could discuss how ambitions are directed. Accordingly, the following paragraph doesn't make much sense: — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the distinction you make between duty as a director rather than a motivator is a good one.

I think you guys misunderstand — ToothyMaw

I think I do understand, but I disagree with what you wrote. As I noted, I don't think duty is the strongest motivator or even a particularly important one for many people. As for the rest of your formulation, sure, strong, loyal leaders are necessary, but I'm not as cynical about our system as you are.

How can you say:
Motivation comes from inside.
— T Clark

Then say:
A desire to avoid the judgment of others.
— T Clark

Isn't that contradictory? — Merkwurdichliebe

No. I don't see it as contradictory at all.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends. — ToothyMaw

This is certainly not true of me. Motivation comes from inside. It comes from love, empathy, fear, hunger, hate, shame, guilt, friendship, fellow feeling, affection... Loyalty, responsibility, kindness grow out of love, friendship, affection. A desire to do good for people we care about. Duty, morality, judgment grow out of fear, guilt, shame. A desire to avoid the judgment of others.

I don't get it. I only take a peek at this thread once in a very long time, but you guys are still responding to NOS4A2 after hundreds of pages. I can understand why he posts, but I don't know why you don't just ignore him. You won't change his mind. He won't change yours.

To give an idea of the caliber of writer SA used to employ: — hypericin

I subscribed back in the 1970s. I finally gave up because so many of the articles were over my head. I didn't take another look until the 2000s. Might as well read "Discover."

Many scientific papers are published for purposes. — flannel jesus

I don't think there's much of a disagreement between you and me and what there is is metaphysical, epistemological, not scientific. You and I just seem to have trouble linking up. Let's leave it at that and I'll try harder in our next conversation.

But verifiable experiments have been born from this sort of work. For example, tests of Bell's Inequalities came out of work in foundations and are important. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment came out of Wheeler and Feynman's work in foundations. — Count Timothy von Icarus

One thing that Becker wrote and that I endorse is that, even if different interpretations can not be distinguished empirically, they have epistemological value if they can help suggest new ways to test quantum mechanical principles. If I remember correctly, Becker's statement was kind of arm waving and he didn't really provide any examples.

The spontaneous collapse versions do make slightly different predictions and have been tested in some forms. I posted a link to those above. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you repost the link. I couldn't find it.

This has been an interesting discussion.

The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations by Benno Teschke — Maw

It has always surprised? confused? me how often the Treaty of Westphalia is referenced (blamed?), 375 years later, in relation to current international relations. Let us know what you think when you're done.

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales. — T Clark

This statement doesn't challenge Bell's theorem, it's implications, or your interpretation. It's my pedantic way of saying that science describes how the world works. It doesn't have any purpose, it's just a description.

this whole conversation lately has just been you telling me I'm misinterpreting bells theorem. — flannel jesus

I never said you misinterpreted Bell's theorem, I said you misrepresented what I wrote. Which you've just done again. I don't think our misunderstanding each other is intentional. It certainly isn't on my side.

Let's try this discussion again the next time it comes around. We're not getting anywhere here.

What's the big deal?... I'm not just some silly goober inventing new nonsensical ways of understanding experiments. I believe my understanding is in fact the intended understanding. — flannel jesus

You have misrepresented the things I wrote in every response you've made to my posts in this discussion and I'm tired of it. What I'm saying is not that hard to understand and it doesn't contradict Bell's theorem or call into question the results of experimental testing or it's scientific importance.

I'm all done.

Bell’s theorem reveals that the entanglement-based correlations predicted by quantum mechanics are strikingly different from the sort of locally explicable correlations familiar in a classical context. — flannel jesus

I understand that phenomena at atomic and subatomic scales behave differently than those at human scale. It is common that phenomena at different scales behave differently. Superconductivity manifests at temperatures near absolute zero but is not seen at room temperature. Relativistic effects manifest at speeds near the speed of light but are not seen at slower speeds. What's the big deal?

The quote of mine is just rewording that, where I replace "local hidden variable theories" with the phrase "classical universe where those questions have singular, definite answers." Those phrases may not be perfectly interchangeable, but they are close to interchangeable. — flannel jesus

I don't see how the two phrases are interchangeable at all.

↪T Clark my mistake. Your post said some disagree, and then you brought up many worlds in a way that sounded like you think many worlds is an example of disagreement. — flannel jesus

to explain it to someone who rejected QM out of the gate, and didn't want to understand the maths and probabilities involved — flannel jesus

Are you talking about me again? If so, stop misrepresenting what I wrote.

They matter because they prove with reasonable certainty that we live in a world that does not match up with classical assumptions.

T Clark said many people disagree with that and he brought up "many earths", which I assume to be many worlds - please correct me if I'm wrong. Many worlds is quantum mechanics. Many worlds is NOT classical. Many worlds also believes in indeterminate answers to measurement questions prior to measurement. — flannel jesus

You keep misstating my position. It's frustrating. I never wrote and I don't believe that the subatomic world is describable in terms of classical physics. I said I don't see that quantum mechanics rules out realism. Quantum mechanical phenomena behave differently than classical phenomena, but that doesn't mean they're not real.

The inequalities in Bells Theorem are there to help us test if our universe is one where it's in fact true that we might live in a classical universe where those questions have singular, definite answers. — flannel jesus

In my understanding, this is not true. It is your interpretation, not mine and probably not Bell's. The inequalities are not "there to help us," they describe phenomena at very small scales.

Many worlds doesn't disagree with it at all. — flannel jesus

I didn't say that the two approaches disagreed, I said that one of the reasons many worlds is appealing is that some people see it as addressing the claim that quantum phenomena are "ontologically indeterminant."

I've covered one-third of the book. Harrowing indeed. But the storytelling is very inviting. It's hard to put it down. You should try it. — Hailey

I'll put it on my list, but I generally don't do well with harrowing.

This is a subject I'm really in interested in and, from what I've read, your posts are well written and interesting, but they're way too long. You're covering a lot here, enough for more than one discussion and way too much for just one. Enough for 10 discussions. The forum does not work well for manifestos. If you want things to work out, focusing on a relatively narrow subject is usually necessary.

You might be interested in Adam Becker's book "What is Real?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I noted on another thread, I did read Becker's book and enjoyed it. It was a bit too People Magazine for me - about biography, personality, and relationships rather than science. Becker was also too rah rah for non-Copenhagen interpretations for my taste - a bit smug and condescending. But the explanations of the different interpretations were clear and well thought through. I found that really helpful. I found one of the interpretations Becker described - spontaneous collapse - plausible and intriguing, although I still don't see how it can be distinguished from the others experimentally.

All in all, my understanding of the overall problem hasn't changed.

Quantum measurements are indeterminate prior to measurement, genuinely and actually indeterminate rather than just a question that we don't yet have the answer to. Ontologically indeterminate, if you will. Bells theorem settles that question pretty cleanly, which is why it's so valuable in the history of quantum mechanics. — flannel jesus

Except you'll find people who disagree with that. The whole many earth's interpretation was developed to address that issue. Reality is a metaphysical characteristic, not a scientific one.

Sure, I thought the article maybe did a good job at explaining that but perhaps it's not as explicit as it could be. I'm only a layman, but I do have what I consider to be a relatively compelling analogy, if you're interested. — flannel jesus

The article was fine. It did explain the Bell inequalities well. I also am very much a layman. Very, very much. That's why I have been struggling with the implications of QM once you get beyond the basic questions. Different expert sources give very different answers to the questions I am looking for answers to. Locality matters. It doesn't. Realism matters. It doesn't. All interpretations of QM are equivalent. They're not. Just because locality is violated, that doesn't mean that QM can be used to send information faster than the speed of light. It does.

if you've tried and struggled to understand it, I definitely recommend at least one go of the above article. It took some effort but it really clarified everything for me. — flannel jesus

Thanks. I took a look.

I'm not really confused about the mechanics of tests of the Bell inequality. If you do this and this, then this happens. Relatively straightforward. The implications of those results are a bit harder to get a grip on - What do they say about realism and locality? Where this all started for me was with the question whether or not the results of Bell inequality experiments have any implications for determining which interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As far as I can see, the results have nothing definitive to say about QM interpretations.

That leaves me where I started - if the different interpretations give the same results, they are equivalent. Any differences between them are metaphysics, not science. That will remain the case until someone can figure out how to test for differences between the interpretations. I predict, on the basis of my limited understanding, that it will not be possible.

I find this kind of discussion of morality frustrating. I don't think it gets to the heart of how morality works for normal people in their everyday lives and I don't find it's arguments convincing. You and I are not going to come to any agreement. We've already started repeating our arguments and not saying anything new, so I vote we leave it there.

We have definitely gotten to the end of my competence and then gone on few extra lengths. I have some more reading and thinking to do. This was a useful conversation for me.

I still don't know what his idea of culpability means in this context. People aren't to blame for getting pregnant, they are responsible for their actions and their consequences.

Clearly you and I aren't going to come to any agreement on this when you don't even recognize that you are making a judgment that the fetus' interests are more important than the woman's.