Generalized Hardy's paradox shows an even stronger conflict between quantum and classical physics

February 1, 2018 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
By building the most general framework for the n-particle Hardy’s paradox and Hardy’s inequality, the results of the new paper provide a stronger Hardy’s paradox, and can also detect more quantum entangled states. As the success probability for the three-qubit generalized Hardy’s paradox reaches 0.25, the researchers are very hopeful that it will be observed in future experiments. Credit: Jiang, et al. © 2018 American Physical Society

In 1993, physicist Lucien Hardy proposed an experiment showing that there is a small probability (around 6-9%) of observing a particle and its antiparticle interacting with each other without annihilating—something that is impossible in classical physics. The way to explain this result is to require quantum theory to be nonlocal: that is, to allow for the existence of long-range quantum correlations, such as entanglement, so that particles can influence each other across long distances.

So far, Hardy's paradox has been experimentally demonstrated with two , and a few special cases with more than two particles have been proposed but not experimentally demonstrated. Now in a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists have presented a generalized Hardy's paradox that extends to any number of particles. Further, they show that any version of Hardy's paradox that involves three or more particles conflicts with local (classical) theory even more strongly than any of the previous versions of the paradox do. To illustrate, the physicists proposed an experiment with three particles in which the probability of observing the paradoxical event reaches an estimated 25%.

"In this paper, we show a family of generalized Hardy's paradox to the most degree, in that by adjusting certain parameters they not only include previously known extensions as special cases, but also give sharper conflicts between quantum and classical theories in general," coauthor Jing-Ling Chen at Nankai University and the National University of Singapore told Phys.org. "What's more, based on the paradoxes, we are able to write down novel Bell's inequalities, which enable us to detect more quantum entangled states."

As the physicists explain, Hardy's paradox involves inequalities that correspond to the inequalities in Bell's theorem—a theorem showing that quantum mechanics must violate either locality or realism. As previous research has shown, Hardy's paradox can be interpreted in terms of inequalities by considering the probabilities of certain events occurring. Suppose that the probabilities that A < B, B < C, and C < D are all zero. In the classical world, it would then be impossible to have A < D. But in Hardy's paradox, A < D occurs with some nonzero probability, in contrast with classical predictions.

"Put simply, Hardy's paradox states that a classically impossible sequence of events from end to end—just imagine a snake devouring its tail—as it were, are nonvanishingly possible in the quantum region," Chen said. "This is really surprising."

In the future, the physicists plan to further explore the connections between the generalized Hardy's paradox and Bell's inequalities. In regards to experiments, a group at the University of Science and Technology of China has begun to perform the photon-based experiment to verify the stronger Hardy's .

Explore further: Physicists resolve a paradox of quantum theory

More information: Shu-Han Jiang et al. "Generalized Hardy's Paradox." Physical Review Letters 120, 050403 (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.050403, Also at arXiv:1709.09812 [quant-ph]

Related Stories

Physicists resolve a paradox of quantum theory

January 14, 2009

University of Toronto quantum physicists Jeff Lundeen and Aephraim Steinberg have shown that Hardy's paradox, a proposal that has confounded physicists for over a decade, can be confirmed and ultimately resolved, a task which ...

Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality

April 21, 2017

(Phys.org)—For the first time, physicists have experimentally demonstrated the violation of "bilocal causality"—a concept that is related to the more standard local causality, except that it accounts for the precise way ...

Entanglement without Classical Correlations

August 27, 2008

Quantum mechanics is full of counterintuitive concepts. The idea of entanglement – when two or more particles instantaneously exhibit dependent characteristics when measured, no matter how far apart they are – is one ...

Recommended for you

Researchers study interactions in molecules using AI

October 19, 2018

Researchers from the University of Luxembourg, Technische Universität Berlin, and the Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society have combined machine learning and quantum mechanics to predict the dynamics and atomic ...

Pushing the extra cold frontiers of superconducting science

October 18, 2018

Measuring the properties of superconducting materials in magnetic fields at close to absolute zero temperatures is difficult, but necessary to understand their quantum properties. How cold? Lower than 0.05 Kelvin (-272°C).

332 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2018
By "local (classical)", do you mean local realism? Can Hardy's paradox be understood through locality and non-realism?

QM rejects local realism, it is strange to constantly see scientists reject a physics principle (locality) for a philosophical and metaphysical position (realism)!
Mihai
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2018
By "local (classical)", do you mean local realism? Can Hardy's paradox be understood through locality and non-realism?

QM rejects local realism, it is strange to constantly see scientists reject a physics principle (locality) for a philosophical and metaphysical position (realism)!


Sirdumpalot, your argument is valid and a good tool for science in general, giving it its necessary humility, but we can't invoke it just to preserve old dogma. That argument is similar to the inquisition coming to Galileo and saying: "It is strange to constantly see scientists reject a physics principle (geocentrism) for a philosophical metaphysical position (realism)!" Eventually we have to accept the growing evidence and realize that the old principle is old school.
In the end science doesn't make a recourse to realism, but some times the evidence is strongly in favor of some principles over other.
forumid001
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2018
Once again, a fancy paper is published in a high profile journal and repeats some old claims: QM is different from classical physics; QM is surprising (because we must assume that classical physics is not surprising).
rrwillsj
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
sir, the first question that came to my mind reading your thoughtful comment...

When you use the terms 'Local' and 'Realism'. Do your concepts have the same meaning as those words used by the writers of this article?
sirdumpalot
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2018
Realism - a property or object that is known independent of observation. So for the Copenhagen interpretation, the act of measurement of a property of a system by some device equates to the fact that the value of that property is then known to all quantum observers, even if they have not themselves yet observed that system. (in other words a statement/knowledge that is not within the scientific method of observation/measurement)

Locality - information transfer bound by the speed of light.

My only point is does this experiment offer any truths as to the choice between local but non-real, and non-local but real?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
My only point is does this experiment offer any truths as to the choice between local but non-real, and non-local but real?


Since the Hardy paradox relies on Bell inequalities, it appears that the answer is, no,....i.e. the Bell inequalities explicitly make the presumption of Locality, to then test if those inequality correlations are violated.

It appears that both Realism and Locality can not be tested in the same experimental apparatus,.... which is why both are dependent upon interpretational layers in the choice of experiment.

Copenhagen interpretation (anti-realism) would accept Locality, and say that the quantum attribute does not have an independent existence,.. which is to say, the quantum attribute is created in the measurement where it did not exist beforehand.

Since QFT presumes SR as space-time constraints, it would maintain locality, at the expense of realism.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2018
[edit]
sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2018
It appears that both Realism and Locality can not be tested in the same experimental apparatus,.... which is why both are dependent upon interpretational layers in the choice of experiment.


So, (and I admit I'm an econ major - tiger parent forcing etc, but philosophy of science is my love., given that the rigorous analysis of pure science is now mostly beyond me! :p ),

if no one direct experiment can test Locality vs Realism, does this mean that the choice between the two is left to, at best, some inference through indirect experiment.. something like the law of transitivity, or at worst, the logical-philosophical method? (not that it's a bad method imo - I'm a Nagarjuna fan for a strongly logical argument for non-realism - hence my statements - but that's a very deep dive for most physicists, given the disciplines detachment from philosophy in the recent centuries!! :D )

From a philosophy of science point of view..
sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2018
Copernicus' magic was to convince humans that they are not a preferential (absolutely God loved) frame of reference (he had decent reasoning too!). Galileo relativised motion (inertial frames and all).. Newton only built on this, by building a 'relative motion, absolute Time, absolute Space, absolute Property, absolute Object' theory of motion.. Einstein first gave us 'relative time' with special relativity, and then 'relative space-time' with general relativity.. given the march of the principle of relativity, and its progressively increasing accuracy with respect to observed phenomena, why argue for non-locality against non-realism of property or object, with respect to quantum mechanics? ... this to me seems like a step backwards into the dark ages. Even Newton had issues with his gravity acting at a distance.. I'm surprised that modern scientists so easily fall to the non-local side of the debate given what has come before...
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
if no one direct experiment can test Locality vs Realism, does this mean that the choice between the two is left to, at best, some inference through indirect experiment..


I think it must be left to philosophy of physics,... which is what interpretations of QM are, since all interpretational QM theories are empirically indistinguishable,.. they don't add anything new....

As you probably know, one of the most important elements of modern philosophy as it pertains to science, is epistemology. We can rely on this to answer your question, because it is one really of the extent of knowledge.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
Anti-Realism- It appears to me that, while there must be an objective reality, it is conceptually formless independent of measurement; conceptualized attributes do not exist prior to measurement; anti-realism. Since we are a-priori constituted to use concepts to think, which is a condition for thought and therefore experimental knowledge,... we in effect conform the underlying reality to our conceptual framework. The "it" is neither a wave nor a particle, but rather these are conceptual/mathematical forms in which "it" is made to conform as a condition for it's observation given the necessity of classical scale experimental apparatus and interpretations by a mind.

Non-Locality - Space and time are concepts as well, as they don't enter into the dynamics of physical processes as fields or particles that are observable independent of their application. One can therefore say that the 'underlying reality' does not evolve in space-time, but rather is a condition (QFT).
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
IOW, I think your question, a very important one, is limited by the very meaning of "knowledge" and the conditions for it.

why argue for non-locality against non-realism of property or object, with respect to quantum mechanics?


I don't think the point was to argue against locality per se, but rather there are starting presumptions made in the experiment and then the point is to see if those presumptions fail. The Bell test presumes that the wavefunction is a description of a physical entity with a-priori attributes and that there are local hidden variables. Since the inequalities are violated, it must be that given the presumption of realism, QM must be non-local.

The Bell theorem proves experimentally and independent of theory, that at least one component of local realism is wrong....

-Physical influence limit to speed of light (locality)
-Attributes exist independently of experiment
-Reality doesn't conspire to prevent a choice of experimental arrangement.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2018
I'm surprised that modern scientists so easily fall to the non-local side of the debate given what has come before...


QFT relies on relativistic QM and so presumes locality as a condition.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2018
Einstein first gave us 'relative time' with special relativity, and then 'relative space-time' with general relativity.. given the march of the principle of relativity, and its progressively increasing accuracy with respect to observed phenomena, why argue for non-locality against non-realism of property or object, with respect to quantum mechanics?


That evolution in theory has been to remove observer dependencies,.... to leave only invariant quantities and with QFT, symmetries. Einstein stated "[general covariance] takes away from space and time the last remnants of physical objectivity",.... the objective quantity is the metric in GR,... while space and time are operationally defined in order to make measurements given the epistemological conditions for knowledge to be possible.

There will always remain some artifact of thought in the way preventing knowledge of 'independent reality',... knowledge is contextual.
Mihai
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2018
I see that people treat realism and locality as totally different scenarios and are willing to sacrifice only one, but not both. Le me illustrate a simple thought experiment where I show they are in fact more similar than we thought.
Let's assume that realism is broken, but locality is not. We have 2 observers A and B. In order to preserve locality observer B, must deny a real presence of observer A in the physical space for some time dt (hence contradict realism), that time dt is accounted for nevertheless in the spatio-temporal manifold, which is assumed to be complete. In that time observer B was allowed to have moved a distance x, as it was still in space-time. For observer A, when he resumes the presence in the space-time, sees that B is in a different location, though for A the elapsed time is 0. Hence for observer A, locality is broken. The 2 things are one and the same thing, one viewed from a space perspective and one from the time perspective.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2018
...
There will always remain some artifact of thought in the way preventing knowledge of 'independent reality',... knowledge is contextual.

To the individual observer's reference frame...
Which is the real "independent" reality.
I don't see why you can't just mosh 'em both together and come out with independent quantum reality...
You realize that quantum properties repeat themselves at different densities, don't you?
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2018
I feel like a heckler at a comedy show. This, only conceptual, poorly conceived; 'because the wave equation works!' Space and everything in it is an infinite set of diametrical fields with their centers in a dance until eternity! For they are immortal! We are but a simple thought among the collective!
Ojorf
2 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2018
I see that people treat realism and locality as totally different scenarios and are willing to sacrifice only one, but not both.
...
The 2 things are one and the same thing, one viewed from a space perspective and one from the time perspective.


I think people are treating it the same as in your explanation and not as totally different scenarios.
Your explanation is not sacrificing both locality and realism. From one perspective locality is sacrificed and form the other realism, you cannot sacrifice both from the same perspective.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018

So, (and I admit I'm an econ major - tiger parent forcing etc, but philosophy of science is my love., given that the rigorous analysis of pure science is now mostly beyond me! :p )
Well that's a refreshing admission. Hey nou, maybe you should try it out. See how it feels.
I think it must be left to philosophy of physics,...
-And I think it should be left to real physicists who are the only ones who actually know what they're doing.

For instance
IOW, I think your question, a very important one, is limited by the very meaning of "knowledge" and the conditions for it
-is one of those idiot conundrums akin to 'how far is up?' Except that no one could be duped into discussing THAT one for very long.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
As you probably know, one of the most important elements of modern philosophy as it pertains to science, is epistemology
Of course. Because it's one of the most fraudulent.

"Epistemology addresses such questions as "What makes justified beliefs justified?",[4] "What does it mean to say that we know something?"[5] and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"

- See?

"To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous philo bullshit, is the real reality."
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2018
Otto, the expert at avoiding actual substantive discussion. Was there a point that I made that you object to, Otto?

You realize that quantum properties repeat themselves at different densities, don't you?


No, I didn't know this.

Do you mean to say that there are symmetries such as to allow one to group sub-atomic particles in successive categories ('generations')? If so, it's not "density" so that one can generalize this. Only three generations are known.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
Was there a point that I made that you object to, Otto?
Naw because any attempts to refute philopap specifics only allows you to turn on the crap faucet and then declare superiority when others are not as adept at fiddling with your word turds as you.

But then real turds have meaning; heavy loads like epistemology do not.

But they still clog up the plumbing don't they? Just to complete the metaphor-
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
In evidence;
That evolution in theory has been to remove observer dependencies,.... to leave only invariant quantities and with QFT, symmetries. Einstein stated "[general covariance] takes away from space and time the last remnants of physical objectivity",.... the objective quantity is the metric in GR,... while space and time are operationally defined in order to make measurements given the epistemological conditions for knowledge to be possible
-Nou starts out with many very scientific terms and phrases but then quickly adds certified philopap 'epistemological conditions for knowledge'.

This is like when the priest expounds on religious explanations for natural phenomena but then adds the qualifier '...but who can know the mind of god?' -in order to avoid piercing questions.

'But who can ever know what knowledge is?' Asks the philo priest.

Amen says the congregation.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2018
There will always remain some artifact of thought in the way preventing knowledge of 'independent reality',... knowledge is contextual.

Maybe this way of saying it will help you....

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason [epistemology]. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. [a-priori conditions for thought to be possible]" - Stephen Hawking

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world...
The philo dishonestly added [epistomology] to the above quote, implying that the scientist was speaking in formal philosophical terms. He wasnt.

As the philo knows, hawking has belittled formal philosophy as irrelevant and unscientific and passě and useless.
Maybe this way of saying it will help you....
And maybe this will jolt you from your dogma [but I doubt it];

"As early as 1927 we find Bohr rejecting the hypothesis which claims that quantum theory requires a conscious observer. At least according to Heisenberg's later written recollections,
which Bohr found amusing but not much different from his own, Bohr insisted that year: '[I]t still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus'"
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2018
The philo dishonestly added [epistomology] to the above quote, implying that the scientist was speaking in formal philosophical terms. He wasnt.


The "[ ]" symbols are to make clear that it was an edit,... to draw attention to my particular point of the quotes. Standard practice. Are you being dishonest by pretending not to know this?

Regarding Bohr. I don't claim that consciousness reaches out, as it were, to interact with the quantum system, nor that there is no objective reality independent of consciousness,.... but what I do claim, is that consciousness precedes the possibility of (a-posteriori) knowledge, and that phenomenal reality (which science investigates and which means 'our observable knowledge of reality'), requires consciousness. The question then is how to extract the mere artifacts of our intellectual faculties, from theory, ...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
The "[ ]" symbols are to make clear that it was an edit,... to draw attention to my particular point of the quotes. Standard practice. Are you being dishonest by pretending not to know this?
Ahahaaa no, you took a quote from a scientist and implied that he was doing formal philosophy by sticking your word in it.

It's like if you took the John Denver lyric "Life ain't nothin' but a funny funny riddle [ontology]"

It's like if you claimed that science is a branch of philosophy, which you've done.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2018
Regarding Bohr. I don't claim that consciousness reaches out, as it were, to interact with the quantum system, nor that there is no objective reality independent of blahhhhh
- See? Like I said, philos will jump on any opportunity to spiel.

You have no idea what youre claiming because you're not a scientist. You're a poet like Shakespeare. But of course, nothing like Shakespeare.

But DO shut me up. Provide one example of where a physphilo was cited as a team member in a hard science paper give one example of where one of you guys materially contributed to a hard science experiment.

Shouldn't be hard if you are indeed doing something useful... ?
Mihai
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2018

I think people are treating it the same as in your explanation and not as totally different scenarios.
Your explanation is not sacrificing both locality and realism. From one perspective locality is sacrificed and form the other realism, you cannot sacrifice both from the same perspective.

Ojorf, I totally agree with you here. You need more than 1 observer to make the distinction. What bothered me was that some people have a view (voiced here by sirdumpalot) that breaking locality is a no-no, as it breaks the general relativity, while breaking realism is somewhat ok and keeps GR intact. They are in fact both raising the possibility of discontinuous world lines in the space-time manifold from a GR view. In the case if non-locality the discontinuity is a space-like separation, while in the case of non-realism it is time-like.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2018
@Otto, it appears that you have more interest in https://en.wikipe...ilosophy with someone not themselves interested even in physics, then I will have to ignore your posts. If you can articulate an objection that is substantive and directed to an actual comment made by me, then I may respond.

You should be honest with yourself; It is difficult for your state of knowledge to tell when I am speaking physics or when I'm speaking philosophy above,... just as when you thought that "ensemble" was a philosophy term. Once you can admit this to yourself, then you can stop being a fraud and pretending that your are debating me.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2018
Edit @Otto, it appears that you have more interest in Metaphilosophy and drive-by bickering, than physics. I have no interest in "debating" philosophy of physics
with someone not themselves interested even in physics, so I will have to ignore your posts. If you can articulate an objection that is substantive and directed to an actual comment made by me, then I may respond.

You should be honest with yourself; It is difficult for your state of knowledge to tell when I am speaking physics or when I'm speaking philosophy above,... just as when you thought that "ensemble" was a philosophy term. Once you can admit this to yourself, then you can stop being a fraud and pretending that [you're] are debating me.


sirdumpalot
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2018
What bothered me was that some people have a view (voiced here by sirdumpalot) that breaking locality is a no-no, as it breaks the general relativity, while breaking realism is somewhat ok and keeps GR intact.


My point on realism is that for a property to be 'real' in the sense of having some iota of observer-independent state or property requires, from a pure methodology of science point of view - a non-scientific, speculative, hypothetical background.

Take Copenhagen - if a device measures a system to have a property with value X, that value is then 'known' as X, for all other quantum systems. With what observer dependent experiment, can you prove or even examine a hypothesis that the value is X, specifically for those quantum systems that have yet to observe it, is in fact X?

It is logically impossible to observe a value claimed as independent of observation. It is ascientific - beyond the method of observation/measurement - and metaphysical.
sirdumpalot
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2018
If Quantum Realism (that metaphysics), posits that "quantum reality inherently observes" (how do you measure that a quantum system observes when you aren't observing it, to justify 'inherent'), then, the property of realism within actual scientific debate is a bit like the reverse "quantum reality is inherently observed" - systems, having some level of 'knowledge' of properties or systems, when they have not themselves directly observed those properties or systems, equates to "quantum reality is inherently observed".

But observation is an inherent duality. Can't have either the observer or the observed without the other, logically.

On a side note, it's day and I don't observe the Moon, but I can infer it is there, with respect to me or the Earth. Is it just that inference without observation is much less useful at the quantum scale?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
On a side note, it's day and I don't observe the Moon, but I can infer it is there, with respect to me or the Earth. Is it just that inference without observation is much less useful at the quantum scale?


It's more profound than merely 'less useful'. In fact, the assumption that you described, if taken to be 'inferring results of possible measurements that have not in fact been performed', is known as Counterfactual Definiteness, and is that very component of local realism that is experimentally violated by the Bell inequality type tests.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
If Quantum Realism (that metaphysics), posits that "quantum reality inherently observes" (how do you measure that a quantum system observes when you aren't observing it, to justify 'inherent'), then, the property of realism within actual scientific debate is a bit like the reverse "quantum reality is inherently observed"


This is a good point. This notion that quantum reality constantly 'measures', I believe refers to Decoherence. Experiments to observe quantum effects, are designed to avoid decoherence, that is, until the system interacts with the macroscopic apparatus. Apart from this, decoherence does not 'collapse the wavefunction' into particular values. It causes loss of interference terms and therefore loss of quantum effects with the end result being the effective equivalence of a mixed state,.... but results in no particular state as opposed to another in the mixed state.....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
..... at least offers no explanation of the result of a particular value as opposed to another of the mixed state. This is related to the preferred basis problem. I believe there is a distinction to be made between 'quantum interactions' and 'quantum measurements', the latter performed as experiments for observation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
You should be honest with yourself; It is difficult for your state of knowledge to tell when I am speaking physics or when I'm speaking philosophy
Doesn't matter what you're 'speaking'. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever that physphilos contribute to what scientists actually do can you?

You're groupies desperately trying (and failing) to appear relevant.

'Speaking' and not 'doing' is all you guys do. And no one listens but each other. Real scientists ignore philos or, as with the krauss/Albert confrontation, lash out at deliberate and dangerous attempts to misinform the public.
I will ignore you so there
- And I will continually strive to discredit your drivel and the farce that is philosophy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
On a side note, it's day and I don't observe the Moon, but I can infer it is there
The moon is always visible in the daytime in a cloudless sky.

"Any clear morning this week around 10 a.m. you can see the moon riding high in the western sky. Many people are surprised to see the moon in full daylight, yet it is a completely normal occurrence."

-An indication of the typical philo lack of regard for evidence, and the fact that they still live in caves staring at shadows on the wall.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
Definition of analogy

plural analogies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity
b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
Definition of Troll

a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
b : to act as a troll (see 3troll 2) on (a forum, site, etc.)
c : to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
Definition of Faulty Analogy
This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect. [Explain how the fallacy of an invisible daytime moon equates with real events at the quantum scale]

Definition of scientist
A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. [Explain how sitting and thinking equates to systematic activity to acquire knowledge]

Definition of pretence
1. an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
affected and ostentatious speech and behavior.
synonyms: pretentiousness, display, ostentation, affectation, showiness, posturing, humbug
"he was absolutely without pretense"
2. a claim, especially a false or ambitious one
[Explain how pretend scientists can do science]
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
"to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts"

-Provide one example of where a physphilo was cited as a team member in a hard science paper or even cited as a reference.

Give one example of where one of you guys materially contributed to a hard science experiment.

These are not unreasonable requests.

Provide evidence that your compatriots are actually doing something useful.

It may take some work initially but if found, you can use it to shut me up at will.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
It may take some work initially but if found, you can use it to shut me up at will.


Frankly, the only thing that will shut you up is if you study the subject.

Provide evidence that your compatriots are actually doing something useful.

You make unfounded presumptions at random. That is not objective behaviour, it is trolling behaviour.

Provide one example of where a physphilo was cited as a team member in a hard science paper.


As I've point out in this thread and many times directly to you,... all quantum theory interpretations, and their corresponding mathematical formulation, that are empirically indistinguishable, are de facto Philosophy of Physics. This implies, A) there are unresolved philosophical problems that relate to understanding quantum phenomenon,.. and 2) all physicists engage in it one way or another.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
... I've listed so many prominent physicists that write on philosophy of physics, and yet that doesn't shut you up.

Instead you literally invent arguments that no one has made and demand that person prove you wrong. That is was a troll is, one who hi-jacks a thread and diverts it off into bickering by inventing strawman arguments.

You don't post on QM or GR, only metaphilosophy. Maybe you should post at Jerry-Springer forum?

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
Ahaa so you merely claim that all physicists are formal philos. Do you think they would admit to this? Or do you think they might just laugh in your face?

Provide one example of where one of these philo physicists cited epistemological principles in designing an experiment or analysing the results.

This would be the only evidence that your 'discipline' wasn't an enormous waste of time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
I've listed so many prominent physicists that write on philosophy of physics
Writing aetheria is not designing experiments and analysing results. Einstein wrote about god but he did not reference the freeking bible in devising his theories of relativity.

Your hawking quote doesnt prove he's a philo. All you have to do is read what he's written about philos, in order to understand that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
""philosophy used to be a field that had content," to which he later added,

"Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, "those that can't do, teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym." And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics whatsoever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it's fairly technical. And so it's really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I'd say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened—and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn't."
-Lawrence Krauss, troll extraordinaire

Why don't you babble in his direction for awhile?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
More trollstoff

"Famous astrophysicist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson has joined the debate. In an interview on the Nerdist podcast in May 2014 Tyson remarked, "My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it's, 'What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?'" His overall message was clear: science moves on; philosophy stays mired, useless and effectively dead.

"Tyson's argument is straightforward and is the same as expressed by Krauss: Philosophers from the time of Plato and Aristotle have claimed that knowledge about the world can be obtained by pure thought alone. As Tyson explained, such knowledge cannot be obtained by someone sitting back in an armchair. It can only be gained by observation and experiment. Richard Feynman had once expressed a similar opinion about "armchair philosophers." Dawkins agreed with Tyson..."
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent on each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — primitive and muddled" - A. Einstein

You clearly don't have interest in QM or GR, nor do I have interest in debating the validity of philosophy of physics, especially with one not themselves interested in either. The notion that non-physicist philosophers advance science, was invented by you and never uttered by me, so it appears that you desire trolling so much that you'll invent reasons for doing so. End.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
They are dependent on each other
No, epistemology depends on science but scientists couldnt care less about epistemologists... asserts the trolls krauss, hawking, Dawkins, Tyson, Feynman, et al. And I mean AL.

You're confusing idle musings with actual science again.

Or you could provide evidence that Einstein used formal philo epistemology in his papers on relativity.
You clearly don't have interest in QM or GR
Are you talking to me or to the trolls krauss, hawking, Dawkins, Tyson, Feynman, et al?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2018
so much that you'll invent reasons for doing so
"philosophy stays mired, useless and effectively dead."

-It wasnt ME who invented this reason.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
Now you're lying and backpeddling. You asked above....

Provide one example of where one of these philo physicists cited epistemological principles in designing an experiment or analysing the results.


It is well known to those who have interest in physics and its history that Einstein, influenced by philosophers like Kant, Mach, etc,... found epistemological principles to be fundamental to his discovery of special relativity...

"This postulate, pertaining to epistemology, proves to be of fundamental importance....[...]...The special relativity theory resulted in appreciable advances. It reconciled mechanics and electrodynamics. It reduced the number of logically independent hypotheses regarding the latter. It enforced the need for a clarification of the fundamental concepts in epistemological terms. " - Einstein, from Noble Prize lecture

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
Provide a peer reviewed PAPER describing a physics EXPERIMENT in which a formal philo made a viable contribution.

THIS

"Now in a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists have presented a generalized Hardy's paradox... AUTHORS & AFFILIATIONS
Shu-Han Jiang1,2, Zhen-Peng Xu1,3, Hong-Yi Su4,*, Arun Kumar Pati5,†, and Jing-Ling Chen1,6,‡"

- is a PAPER.

You need to refute krauss

"the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics whatsoever"

- as well as me.
sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2018
philosophy (since Plato and his lot's devouring of Democritus), has generally been an over two millenia exchange of sophistry. I grant you that. but as a scientist, given the hypothesis that the Universe can be considered (not observed of course), as whole, requires for the Universe to function according to one set of rules.

to say that between the (mostly, after all, philosophers have eyes, ears etc) the a-priori evidence of the philosopher, and the a-posteriori experience of the scientist, subject to both being utterly limited to truth - either logical or observational, respectively - lies a great chasm, requires logically inference truths to be fundamentally apart from observational truths.

philosophy gets apart bad wrap because in the west it has been mostly obsessed with absolutes for 2500 years. but that's a bad wrap - science has had a fair share of them too, at least until Einstein, and QM still has its Essentialism interpretations - de Broglie Bohm is pure God..
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
Einstein, from Noble Prize lecture
Yeah and he said this way back when there was still some respect i suppose for philosophy. Not so much now eh?

""Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead," [Hawking] said. "Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics."
sirdumpalot
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
yet still a QM interpretation (on its way out, granted)..

the scientific method is a combination of a-priori and a-posteriori.. null hypothesis and experiment. both are necessary. my qualm is that fundamental science (modern physics), has left the first part of the method, considering it some antiquated limb best cut off, whilst upgrading experiment to something more than it is..

5 sigma - the definition of existence, how is that 'real'? the second peano axiom, the first classical law of thought, 'x=x', how is that 'real', beyond 0 information tautology!

(this is not to say Nothing is real, just that Copernicus' principle of relativity bites harder than a scientist not considering philosophy might think!)

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Feb 03, 2018
I feel like a heckler at a comedy show. This, only conceptual, poorly conceived; 'because the wave equation works!' Space and everything in it is an infinite set of diametrical fields with their centers in a dance until eternity! For they are immortal! We are but a simple thought among the collective!

So why not ignore the obvious?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
Provide one example of where one of these philo physicists cited epistemological principles in designing an experiment or analysing the results


The historical motivation of the {Bell-Theorem} was to empirically settle a philosophical debate regarding interpretation of quantum mechanics. The OBVIOUS epistemological elements were the components of 'local realism' as outlined above in several posts. Thus the entire point of the subsequent Bell Inequality experimental tests are to determine the validity of the a-priori assumption of these 'local realism' concepts in the context of QM.

I'm not wasting my time to cite individual papers, when there are hundreds of papers on Bell type inequality experiments alone, and hundreds on the history of QM, and dozens of texts,.... all of which you have no interest in, for otherwise you would not be making such absurd posts.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
Not to mention hundreds of books on the history of QM and it's philosophical debate and how positivist vs realist epistemological perspectives guided different approaches which resulted in empirically indistinguishable theories as a result, and thus the modern branch of philosophy of QM or philosophy of physics. Link provided above.

"...much of the early work on Bell's theorem was published only in Epistemological Letters", a well known news-letter contributed to by many now prominent physicists, on philosophy of physics. The Bell theorem has now become foundational to quantum mechanics, perhaps even, "the most profound in science" (Stapp, 1975).

Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 03, 2018
In summary....

Provide one example of where one of these philo physicists cited epistemological principles in designing an experiment or analysing the results


The Bell theorem, a theoretical experiment in the form of correlation inequalities, was a result which has become foundational to quantum mechanics, perhaps even, "the most profound in science" (Stapp, 1975),... had it's genesis in a publication, the specific purpose of which was an outlet for philosophy of physics that would not be published in mainstream science journals, and was even entitled "Epistemological Letters".

Again, the epistemological elements are very obvious in the notion of 'local realism' as outlined above,... Einsteinian locality, counterfactual definiteness, free choice of experiment.

QED

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
Thus the entire point of the subsequent Bell Inequality experimental tests
So cite a specific test that includes in its roster or credits a bona fide philo or a philo paper or text or article or SOMETHING rather than 'we say it's epistemology so then that's what it is'.

You will not find one physicist who is claiming to conduct experiments to further our understanding of 'epistomology' ie

"What makes justified beliefs justified?",[4] "What does it mean to say that we know something?"[5] and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"
Not to mention hundreds of books on the history of QM and it's philosophical debate and how positivist vs realist epistemological perspectives guided different approaches which resulted in empirically indistinguishable theories as a result, and thus the modern branch of philosophy of QM or philosophy of physics
-which, according to krauss, has absolutely NO impact on actual physics whatsoever.

Nobody reads that crap but you guys.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
hundreds of papers on Bell type inequality experiments alone, and hundreds on the history of QM, and dozens of texts,.... all of which you have no interest in
Well krauss certainly does and he says that physphilos had no input whatsoever. Youre arguing with him, not me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2018
Funny I'm reading about John Stewart Bell, and the only use of the word epistemology I can find is in the title of the publication 'Epistomological Letters', which described itself as

"an open and informal journal allowing confrontation and ripening of ideas before publishing in some adequate journal and 'the only place where anybody who dared to question the Copenhagen interpretation could be published'.

IOW what you're saying is that the TITLE of a mimeographed, underground, non-peer reviewed journal makes bell and his theorem philosophy and not physics?

I once read an article about entanglement in popular mechanics. Does that mean it's car repair and not QM?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 04, 2018
Hmmmm. I think arguing about the nature of knowledge is arguing about the capabilities needed to have it. I think that unless someone can come up with an alternative means of "having knowledge" without these capabilities it's footless to have this argument. If we question our own method of having knowledge without proposing an alternative, we're engaging in an argument that cannot be refuted, i.e. it's not scientific and perhaps even not philosophical. The various forms of the Gettier arguments seem to me to show this.

I ignore ontology since epistemology seems to be more basic, dealing with "what is knowledge of a thing" as opposed to "what is a thing."

I think, @Noum, that you have stated corollaries to this above.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
epistemology seems to be more basic, dealing with "what is knowledge of a thing" as opposed to "what is a thing."
That's the point. There is no such thing as the 'nature of knowledge'. It's a sham, a dangerous depletion of time and resources.

"Tyson remarked, "My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it's, 'What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?'"

Feynman said it even better.
https://youtu.be/X8aWBcPVPMo

-Let them all starve from lack of grants and budget cutbacks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
It's no coincidence that most all the people I referenced above are also active antireligionists. Formal philosophy has the structure and form of a pseudoreligion, replete with sects, dogmas, and of course mysticism and metaphysics.

"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors."
-Dan Dennett, philo and antireligionist.

'Worse than useless.'

Indefinable and thus unusable terms, no consensus, no progress, and as krauss says, no relevance to actual science whatsoever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
Feynman makes an even better argument about the question 'why' which is of course the primary source of the grand deception which is both formal philosophy and religion.
https://youtu.be/E383eEA54DE
@4:00

'Scientists have learned not to ask the question 'why'. It's not helpful, it doesn't add anything.'
or do you think, you're talking about subject?
Ha and as we all know your wavy aether theory is NEVER the subject. Which is why you've been banned here 50 times.

Go fish another pond zypper.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
Why do you think we should be interested in yours? Has anyone here ever been? No.

Banned 50 times = epic fail. Trying without learning = the signature of psychosis.
Except for further progress of overunity, antigravity, cold fusion, room superconductivity findings and many other "unhelpful" things
I rest my case.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
Not to say, the scientists are doing philosophy and asking "why" questions all the time
No they ask 'how' and then they seek to find out through experimentation and analysis.

When's the last time you formulated an experiment to test your extremely, extremely dense and wavy theory? Or do you just sit and talk about it like the typical philo or priest?

No faith without works.
they become a thing in mainstream physics
No shit. Dense aether theory is now mainstream physics???

Please, link me up.

Are delusions linkable yet?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
Anyway, you're OFF TOPIC here with your void "philosophizing" about "emptiness" of philosophy
Not for you to say aetherboy. I didn't start the topic of formal philosophy. I'm just trying to end it and educate the public to boot.

And I see you're REALLY trying to get banned again. Come back next time as de Sade.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
Physicists aren't geniuses, they adopt dense aether models gradually
de·lu·sion
dəˈlo͞oZHən
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
"the delusion of being watched"
synonyms: misapprehension, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief"
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
"Why" question is equivalent the "How" question about causality of things
No, we can figure out the causality of events but we have no idea why causality works, nor do we need to know. Feynman explains this.

It's a question for priests, philos, and other idiots.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
They just didn't realize, their era is already over
"meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a
ˌmeɡələˈmānēə/Submit
noun
synonyms: delusions of grandeur, folie de grandeur, thirst/lust for power; More
delusion about one's own power or importance (typically as a symptom of manic or paranoid disorder)."

Evidence mounts. Any evidence that real physicists are considering AWT as anything but entertainment? Any evidence whatsoever that any of them even consider it at all?

Gosh, talk about dense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 04, 2018
This is just what the answering of "why" question means
Nope. Pretty basic stuff. Perhaps you need an actual degree in at least one discipline or other. Might I suggest the discipline of marquis de sade? You seem to crave pain.

See there? I got roped into a unresolvable discussion with a lunatic. My bad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
Once they talk about emergent gravity or space-time, then they talk about AWT
Uh no, this is like saying that once we start talking about quantum teleportation we should be able to walk through walls.

You don't have a theory. Just a pretty pile of words with no calcs, no experiments, no papers, no support, no recognition.

You really think that getting banned here and elsewhere 50+ times is lending credence to your cause?

At least rent some lab space and buy an oscilloscope to make it look like you're doing some actual work?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
can assure you, your "advices" are as nonsensical, as your opinions about philosophy and causality in science. I'm doing research exactly in intentions of my own theory: in emergent holistic way
I know I'm as ignorant as any scientist that has ever laughed at your stuff. But like my arguments against the armchair philos above, I like to rely on expert opinions.
https://www.reddi...ent_list

-Notoriety does not mean credibility.
in emergent holistic way
IOW smoke and mirrors.
You're so funny with your naive stereotypes of doing scientific research...:-)
But then philos do this very thing with tweed jackets, oak paneled offices, and very expensive leather recliners.

Buy yourself a lab coat.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
At least put yourself on wiki
https://en.wikipe...theories

More Reddit notoriety
https://www.googl..._zephir/

Paris Hilton is also on Reddit
paris_hilton_breaks_character_and_gives_an_honest

- Maybe a collab?

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2018
Oh come on - hydrodynamic analogs, emergent gravity and fluid space-time concepts have enough of "calcs", experiments, papers, support and even recognition
Dude, these are all things done by other people that have nothing to do with AWT. You only interpret them as such.

Name even one that mentions AWT.
sirdumpalot
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2018
No, we can figure out the causality of events but we have no idea why causality works, nor do we need to know. Feynman explains this.

It's a question for priests, philos, and other idiots


what causality? from another existing thing, from the existing thing itself, from both, from neither? if assuming a 'real' existent as anything beyond the relational, the four exhaustive options above all offer logical inconsistency

commentary on dedicatory verses and chapter 1 of this (Buddhist philosophy) book, as a disclaimer. its a denial of all metaphysics if you are curious, and is equivalent to relational qm

https://www.googl...U5UWyc5f
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
Concerning the confusion over how and why. I can tell you how I made this post. I sat down at the keyboard and punched it out. As to why I made the post, I'd say it's because there seems to me to be a pretty important distinction between how and why. The physics, you might say, is rather obvious. The philosophy is a different issue.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
Philosophers from the time of Plato and Aristotle have claimed that knowledge about the world can be obtained by pure thought alone. As Tyson explained, such knowledge cannot be obtained by someone sitting back in an armchair. It can only be gained by observation and experiment. Richard Feynman had once expressed a similar opinion about "armchair philosophers." Dawkins agreed with Tyson..."
Observation and experiment sound great but if you don't do some analysis what does it mean? It probably means you do the same experiment over and over again and keep getting the same results. You count that as progress? Best think about how you can improve your sensitivity or otherwise make the experiment more meaningful.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
As for reality, the only reality I find in the epistemology seems to be uncertainty. Probably a little above my pay grade though. Bayesian statistics is about as far as I go. Just an observation to give you a warm fuzzy I guess :-).
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
Lost
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
I'm an EE, obviously my first question was, do we really understand charge qualities? Yeah, we can do numbers, we even have a great guess-timator, QM! But if charge exist then charge is all. Proof: Immortal, occupies no space, only the field exist, since a neutron or combo +&- charge as 1 center! QED

So once we measure then we theorize; not the other way around, both are mutually exclusive.

Charge is unique, i.e. Fields affect Fields at the centers, only! Everything else is science Fiction! GR is stupid beyond malfunctioning.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
Definition of Troll

a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
b : to act as a troll (see 3troll 2) on (a forum, site, etc.)
c : to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts
Well maybe. I don't think any of the people alleged to be trolls at this site actually post here, but it's hard to tell. I look at trolls more as those who actually do post on sites like this and attempt to corrupt scientific thinking and support for their own (or their sponsor's) purposes. That is science is seen as a threat to their religion or maybe some country's national ambitions when practiced effectively by competing nations.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
at the case of overunity devices with reversed thermodynamic time arrow
Yes I think dumbledore had a few such gadgets in his office.
The dumb precursors usually aren't aware
But the dumbledores always are arent they?

Provide a working example of one such gadget. And Im not referring to the potter wands you can buy at barnes and noble, nor the thing that guy in south america pulled out from behind hie couch.

BTW rossi proved himself a fraud by lifting the lid during his last demo, and not immediately EXPLAINING it.

And no, Dr Mills is not using filaments now. Watch the vid again. Those filaments are products of his reaction.

Observation and experiment sound great but if you don't do some analysis what does it mean?
So you do realize dont you that a preeminent scientist made this remark? What makes you think he doesnt appreciate analysis???

My god the stupid is really piling up around here.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2018
Observation and experiment sound great but if you don't do some analysis what does it mean?
So you do realize dont you that a preeminent scientist made this remark?
I can certainly understand that. Note the strawman setup.
What makes you think he doesnt appreciate analysis???
Being preeminent I'm sure he does. Sorry if I missed this point.
My god the stupid is really piling up around here.
Trolling trolling trolling...
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 05, 2018
Trolling trolling trolling...
Think of the theme from Rawhide.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2018
Being preeminent I'm sure he does. Sorry if I missed this point
Apology appreciated.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Feb 06, 2018
Definition of Troll

a : to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
b : to act as a troll (see 3troll 2) on (a forum, site, etc.)
c : to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts
Well maybe. I don't think any of the people alleged to be trolls at this site actually post here, but it's hard to tell. I look at trolls more as those who actually do post on sites like this and attempt to corrupt scientific thinking and support for their own (or their sponsor's) purposes. That is science is seen as a threat to their religion or maybe some country's national ambitions when practiced effectively by competing nations.

What kind of people are we free or greedy?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
If we question our own method of having knowledge without proposing an alternative, we're engaging in an argument that cannot be refuted, i.e. it's not scientific and perhaps even not philosophical.


It's not so much about trying to find a 'new method' of acquiring knowledge, as in the epistemological field unto itself, but rather in physics, in extracting out of theory the mind- dependent component of phenomenal reality. The history of physics is exactly this; As posted above Einstein took epistemic elements as key to SR/GR,... in fact tensors are specifically used for this purpose. In QM, the entirety of alternative interpretations and conceptual problems are purely epistemic. Further, as pointed out, the Bell theorem is one specifically to refute epistemic presumptions.

I think, @Noum, that you have stated corollaries to this above.


Yes, as the quote from Hawking shows in addition to other points given.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
For example, tensors allow description in observer dependent space-time terms, while its 'trace' serves to describe invariant quantities. In QM, early Copenhagen interpretation advocates like Bohr and Heisenberg, deliberately formulated a non-intuitive quantum mechanics as they recognized that epistemic concepts are artificial, while during this same time those with a more realist epistemic turn of mind, fully expected quantum phenomenon to accord with intuitive concepts, thus Schroedinger and Einstein entering into historic debate with Bohr/Heisenberg,.... which was one of intuitive vs non-intuitive, positivism vs realism,... one that clearly guided physics history and development.

It's not even a matter of opinion that epistemology has been at the heart of modern physics, a subject that purports to gain Knowledge at all scales of observable reality. As Einstein stated, physics is unthinkable apart from epistemology. This is as near to a truism that I can imagine.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
it's not scientific and perhaps even not philosophical.


I don't fault one for not having interest in philosophy,... most of it is useless after all,.... however, epistemology is in fact one of the core themes in modern philosophy especially since the time of Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Berkeley, and especially Kant, being known as the first great modern epistemologist. The entirety of the scientific method was the development of an epistemology.

This isn't a matter of opinion either.

BTW, The term "epistemology" is an umbrella term used to denote any and all researches into the methods, possibility, and scope of "knowledge" generally,.... so it's not necessary limited to one specific self-contained subject.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2018
So that anytime one questions the validity of conceptual presumptions, it is one of epistemology. The was the case in the Bell theorem (first published in Epistemological letters), questioning the validity in terms translatable to experiment, of the given components of 'local realism'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2018
it's not scientific and perhaps even not philosophical.


I don't fault one for not having interest in philosophy,... most of it is useless after all,.... however, epistemology is in fact one of the core themes in modern philosophy especially since the time of Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Berkeley, and especially Kant, being known as the first great modern epistemologist. The entirety of the scientific method was the development of an epistemology.

This isn't a matter of opinion either.

BTW, The term "epistemology" is an umbrella term used to denote any and all researches into the methods, possibility, and scope of "knowledge" generally,.... so it's not necessary limited to one specific self-contained subject.
And this is of course rubbish. Just because some words are big and cool-sounding, does not mean they have any meaning or value or definition.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 07, 2018
It's not so much about trying to find a 'new method' of acquiring knowledge, as in the epistemological field unto itself, but rather in physics, in extracting out of theory the mind- dependent component of phenomenal reality.

But you've missed the point: no one has demonstrated such extraction by any other means. And without it claiming there is or even might be such means is footless. It's all very well to imagine that there might be some other way of extracting physical knowledge than physics but without actually presenting such a means it remains speculation, as opposed to demonstration.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2018
It's all very well to imagine that there might be some other way of extracting physical knowledge than physics


I have not proposed that there is "another way" than physics. With respect, you're missing the point here or being mislead by Otto's trolling. Within physics itself, there are epistemological problems that have guided theory.

I have not claimed physics for philosophy as GhostOtto incessantly and dishonestly claims. He is inventing that argument, which has never come from me.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2018
there are epistemological problems that have guided theory
Name one where a specific 'epistemological theory' was cited in a paper on theoretical physics.
I have not claimed physics for philosophy as GhostOtto incessantly and dishonestly claims
-But you just did...
So that anytime one questions the validity of conceptual presumptions, it is one of epistemology. The was the case in the Bell theorem (first published in Epistemological letters), questioning the validity in terms translatable to experiment, of the given components of 'local realism'
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2018
Bell theorem (first published in Epistemological letters)
Lie.

"much of the early work on Bell's theorem was published only in Epistemological Letters.[4] Bell's paper, "The Theory of Local Beables" ("be-able," as opposed to "observ-able"), appeared there in March 1976"
https://cds.cern....8125.pdf

-Obviously, per section 8, this was a preliminary attempt.

And again...
I have not claimed physics for philosophy as GhostOtto incessantly and dishonestly claims
-you claim that Bells Theorem is epistemology because this early attempt was printed in an underground rag with the word in the title.

You routinely claim physics is philosophy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 08, 2018
And what is this term 'beable'?

"So a beable is just Bell's notion of a hidden variable. It is not an observable, but somehow represents someone's opinion about what ought to be real... they want to pretend to have values for that, and call them beables or hidden variable or reality or whatever sounds good... Likewise, defining beables as the hypothetical result of unperformed measurements is usually not helpful either..."

IOW beable = ding an sich = noumenon = philobabble. He apparently abandoned it when he wrote his serious papers on his theorem.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2018
I have TheGOO on ignore since I haven't ever heard anything interesting from it. All it seems to want to do is argue.

I'm not convinced there's any mind-dependent way of describing physics. I think the problem with describing physics is that its principles are different in the classical realm than in the quantum realm. In other words, it's not a matter of minds of various types perceiving it differently; it's a basic fundamental fact of the nature of physics.

I don't really understand why people are giving you ones; I gave a five, and I suggest you ignore the whiners.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2018
The difference between classical and quantum physics is that the latter in non-intuitive, while the former is intuitive. The question isn't that knowledge is mind dependent, which is a truism, but rather which components of theory are mind dependent and which are not.

I would suggest one example of a mind-dependent component, the particle/wave ; I would suggest that the 'underlying reality', that which informs experiment, is not a particle nor a wave, but rather these are 'artifacts of conceptual thought' in the sense that they are a necessary means of observation at the macroscopic scale, in setting up experimental apparatus and interpreting the result.

I posted a quote from Hawking. Do you agree with it?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2018
The two main epistemological points of departure in the development of QM was Realism and Positivism. The realists tended to confuse mind dependent conceptual forms with independent reality, ... i.e. Einstein thought QM was incomplete on this basis, because he wanted to subject Reality to the a-priori mind dependent concepts of determinism and separability. The Bell theorem explicitly refutes locality , given the presumption of counterfactuality, or one can choose to accept the former but refute the latter. A choice is mind dependent.

We agree that locality should be kept (consistent with QFT), so this must mean attributes are added in the act of measurement.

I don't really understand why people are giving you ones; I gave a five, and I suggest you ignore the whiners.


The Stumpy and Otto show is only about arguing and metaphilosophy, without actually discussing physics or anything of substance. Good advice, to ignore.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2018
The difference between classical and quantum physics is that the latter in non-intuitive, while the former is intuitive.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the difference is more fundamental. In classical physics we deal with objects that are large; in quantum physics, with objects that are small. The transition between these regimes is determined by the size of Planck's constant. Evidence for this is provided by the Fluctuation Theorem and by the experiments to show that reality operates the way it describes. In other words, it's a matter of the fundamental physics, not of our perception. Our perception is based on the fundamental physics, not vice versa.

I posted a quote from Hawking. Do you agree with it?
I'm not sure I do. And I think I have evidence to back my view up.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2018
We agree that locality should be kept (consistent with QFT), so this must mean attributes are added in the act of measurement.
Not sure I agree with this either. Can you be explicit about how you think QFT requires locality and cannot be compatible with realism instead? It seems to me that any explanation of QFT that is local can also be explained by a non-local realistic interpretation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2018
Die Scheide lekt
I have TheGOO on ignore since I haven't ever heard anything interesting from it. All it seems to want to do is argue
Naw its because you never could win an argument, and you could never prove otto wrong.

I can understand how difficult this must have been for you boohoo
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2018
The difference between classical and quantum physics is that the latter in non-intuitive, while the former is intuitive.

[...] In classical physics we deal with objects that are large; in quantum physics, with objects that are small. [....] In other words, it's a matter of the fundamental physics, not of our perception. Our perception is based on the fundamental physics, not vice versa.


Our sense perception is physically mechanical, certainly, however, the means of forming a synthesis of experience ("understanding") is an emergent phenomenon, with it's own 'laws'. I would point out qualia, like colour, sound, pain,... which are inexplicable from physical laws themselves (are emergent phenomena),... not to mention intuitive concepts that our minds evolved with as a means to synthesize macroscopic experience, as conditions for experience to be possible....
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2018
More to the point, what differentiates QM from classical physics IMO, is that the former exposes the artificiality of mind-dependent concepts,..... counterfactuality, separability, non-locality, particle/wave, determinism,.... it's why QM is "strange", i.e. non-intuitive.

Our perception is based on the fundamental physics, not vice versa.


Lets reverse this; "physics is based on our perception". If one means here our 'knowledge of physics', is based on our perception,... then one is merely stating the scientific method. Such knowledge is based on observation. On the other hand if by "physics" one means Reality as it is independent of our perception and means of acquiring knowledge,... then one is speaking metaphysics....

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2018
The transition between these regimes is determined by the size of Planck's constant.

Theoretically, there is no limit to the size of quantum phenomena, apart from failing to prevent decoherence. I would point out superconductivity, superfluid's, squids, and ongoing research of mesoscopic objects,... I believe recently tuning fork of sorts was put into quantum superposition.

Evidence for this is provided by the Fluctuation Theorem


Can you elaborate on this. To me entropy is what I would call 'emergent',... it is just a measure of the probably states of a volume. This is already the case in classical physics, but we know that the indeterminacy in QM is more fundamental than mere statistics.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2018
We agree that locality should be kept (consistent with QFT), so this must mean attributes are added in the act of measurement.
Not sure I agree with this either. Can you be explicit about how you think QFT requires locality and cannot be compatible with realism instead? It seems to me that any explanation of QFT that is local can also be explained by a non-local realistic interpretation.


QFT is manifestly relativistic and so compatible with SR, therefore it takes locality as a space-time constraint.

Yes, the pilot-wave theory shows that it is possible to maintain realism with non-local hidden variables, ..... but this theory is non-relativistic as a result.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2018
Naw its because you never could win an argument, and you could never prove otto wrong.


Your entire motivation is to "win", what you just admitted as an "argument",..... as opposed to a debate during a discussion. It is not really difficult to "win" if you never admit to being wrong, is it?

For example, I showed you above, quite conclusively, that an analysis of quantum mechanics, the Bell Theorem, "the most profound in science", that provided motivation for subsequent experimental tests, was in genesis originally printed in a philosophy of physics publication, "epistemological letters". Further, I quoted Einstein in his Noble lecture speaking about the importance of epistemological elements that motivated him and epistemological results from SR, as that was the big word you objected to. None of this phased you one iota.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2018
Our sense perception is physically mechanical, certainly, however, the means of forming a synthesis of experience ("understanding") is an emergent phenomenon, with it's own 'laws'.
Here I differ with your interpretation of Hawking. In fact, our understanding is formed from our perceptions. Our intuition is that objects will behave the way we have seen them behave since birth.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 09, 2018
...our understanding is formed from our perceptions.
LOL. When an animal perceives a solar eclipse, or at least experiences one, I should think it most likely thinks it's time for a nap. Primitive man saw the sun god. I'm hoping our understanding is evolving and will keep doing so, especially as we attempt to find the probability of such an event happening by chance somewhere in the universe and being perceived by an intelligent being.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 09, 2018
While I'm on a roll - I believe it was Carl Sagan who dared proffer that man has a purpose - that is, for the universe to see itself. Now the dinosaurs were great beasts but I don't think they lay on their backs at night and contemplated the stars. There had to be another creature. The dinosaurs had to go and instead mammals crawled out of their holes and evolved into hopefully more perceptive or at least more understanding beings.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 09, 2018
cont
As a matter of fact I would argue that the solar eclipse as we see it is necessary for the evolution of intelligent life. But I'll just let the idea float around a while for right now and we'll see if it gets anywhere.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
Your entire motivation is to "win", what you just admitted as an "argument",..... as opposed to a debate during a discussion
No sir. My motivation is to do what i can to combat religion and pseudoreligions like formal philosophy as ignorance-spreaders, progress-retarders, and science threats.

We've already determined that both are false. You are unable to produce one example of physphilos participating in actual science. And I have given you many examples of prominent scientists and even other philos telling you it's worthless, irrelevant, useless, and dangerous.

There's no need to wade into your muck in order to prove its muck.

Debating with philos is like eating muck with a fork.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
was in genesis originally printed in a philosophy of physics publication, "epistemological letters"
-BECAUSE as i SHOWED you there was NO WHERE ELSE to publish it you moron.

Quit lying.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
was in genesis originally printed in a philosophy of physics publication, "epistemological letters"
-BECAUSE as i SHOWED you there was NO WHERE ELSE to publish it you moron


You didn't show me that, you bonehead, because I had already pointed that out myself in order to substantiate my counter point,.... that "philosophy of physics" was relevant to physics.

I will repost the original point with caps....

The Bell theorem, a theoretical experiment in the form of correlation inequalities, was a result which has become foundational to quantum mechanics, perhaps even, "the most profound in science" (Stapp, 1975),... had it's genesis in a publication, the specific purpose of which was an outlet for philosophy of physics THAT WOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED IN MAINSTREAM SCIENCE JOURNALS, and was even entitled "Epistemological Letters". - Noumenon


The emphasis was of course to point out that it was philosophy of physics, that would subsequently impact science.


Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2018
My motivation is to do what i can to combat religion and pseudoreligions like formal philosophy as ignorance-spreaders, progress-retarders, and science threats.


Then I suggest that you learn physics, so that you can understand that "ensemble" is not philosophy term but instead a physics term,.. and understand that {philosophy of physics}, just means interpretation of physics, and is not traditional "formal philosophy",.... it is about physics.

You don't point out where I am wrong wrt physics itself,... you only argue from a {Metaphilosophy} point of view, which is vacuous.

If I am posting ignorance, than it shouldn't be difficult for one more informed, to point out specifically why what I posted was wrong,.... yet ironically, your own ignorance of physics prevents you.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2018
You just quote people like Krauss who is not even speaking about any point that I ever made. In fact I don't disagree that traditional philosophy has not kept up with science. Philosophy of physics HAS though, and that's what I post on,... and can as well quote many prominent physicists doing so as well and can reference prominent physicists for most of the points that I make here.

Clearly my knowledge of physics, it's history, it's theoretical and mathematical formulation, greatly surpasses yours, and yet here you are trying to expose MY ignorance? You don't see anything wrong with this?

Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
Here I differ with your interpretation of Hawking. In fact, our understanding is formed from our perceptions. Our intuition is that objects will behave the way we have seen them behave since birth.


Yes, I agree, we evolved such that our minds are constituted to synthesize macroscopic experience in a particular way. If we observe phenomena, QM, that is incompatible with these 'forms of understanding', then we say it is non-intuitive.

Hawking is just saying that because of the way our minds are constituted in synthesizing experience to form understanding, there will always be 'artifacts of thought' polluting our knowledge of reality as it were....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains" - S. Hawking

He mentions not only perception, but also "the interpretive structure" and "the way we think and reason". In essence, this is Kant's point.

The relevance to QM is that, the strangeness is not the result of the problem with theory nor its supposed incompleteness. It is that we add conceptual structure as a condition for knowledge,.... the experimental apparatus adds the conceptual form to the 'underlying reality',... i.e. failure of realism, failure of counterfactuality, quantum contextuality.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
"The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent on each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — primitive and muddled" - A. Einstein

Einstein making a similar point.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2018
But you've missed the point again, @Noum: our senses are predicated upon the facts of physics. As I said before, in order to argue against this you have to propose an alternative and you haven't. Hawking hasn't either.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2018
And considering things, our instruments are based on these same facts. So you would not only have to propose alternative senses and alternative modes of thought based on them but also alternative instruments. And all of these would have to be based on quantum physics rather than classical physics. That way, quantum physics would be intuitive and classical physics counter-intuitive. Quite a challenge, I think.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2018
To put it another way, I don't think there's some "other formulation of physics" that would give different answers than we get, either in the classical realm or in the quantum realm, and the fact that the FT has so few postulates built into it, and that some of them are classical and some quantum, shows that the whole of physics sticks together as a single formulation that approaches a representation of reality or as much as intelligence can know of it.

The FT requires only three postulates:
1. Ergodic consistency
2. Time-reversal symmetry
3. Knowledge of the math that describes the possible initial states of the system under consideration
Nothing more.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2018
I do not "propose an alternative", nor think there is an-"other formulation of physics", than what in fact exists, nor is this Hawking's point.

Your first point...

If we question our own method of having knowledge without proposing an alternative, we're engaging in an argument that cannot be refuted,


As pointed out on 2/7, 2/8,... it's not a matter of 'proposing an alternative' way. Rather it's a matter of recognizing mind-dependent elements of thought, and then formulating theory such that those elements are not a-priori presumptions. This is what in fact science has done, from,.... it evolved from intuitive classical physics, to non-intuitive QM. As Feynman said, "no one understands quantum theory.". IOW, it's a matter of the difference between 'scientific realism' and 'scientific positivism'.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2018
And considering things, our instruments are based on these same facts. So you would not only have to propose alternative senses and alternative modes of thought based on them but also alternative instruments


As an example, our instruments can be arranged to show that the electron, is a particle,.... but then another choice of instrument can show just as conclusively that in fact that same electron (or any quantum entity, and even molecules), is a wave.

These are alternative modes of thought. Since such alternative modes of thought exist for the same entity of description, one must recognize that there are mind-dependencies going on here,.. and extract these mind dependencies by inferring that the 'underlying reality', (that is, apart from observation) is neither a particle nor a wave but rather, is conceptually formless. The conclusion from this is that experimental apparatus (thus mind) supplies the conceptual form for our knowledge of physics.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2018
Which is to say, the experimental apparatus (designed and interpreted by mind) effectively creates the attributes. This is compatible with the results of the Bell theorem, which refutes at least one component of local realism,.... i.e. Accepting locality as a constraint, it refutes counterfactual definiteness ("the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured").
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 11, 2018
...it's not a matter of 'proposing an alternative' way. Rather it's a matter of recognizing mind-dependent elements of thought, and then formulating theory such that those elements are not a-priori presumptions.
Hmmmm, this strikes me as a path that ends with nothing to think about and no one to think it. Math and theory are both mind-dependent elements of thought. However, they are also based on and intended to represent the nature of our common perceptions, that which we call "reality," whatever that means.

It seems to me that it's pretty difficult to get away from the nature of consensus reality or even really account for it without math and theory. Math itself is based on axioms, which are just assumptions. See number theory, Peano arithmetic, etc. You're kinda stuck with stuff like "there are objects" which are basic to these axioms. Not to mention "this is all real and really happening to me" and basic stuff like that.

[contd]
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 11, 2018
[contd]
So if we're going to talk about "mind dependent elements" I have to say that I can't see how to formulate a theory that doesn't include them, nor a way to formulate a theory that doesn't have any a priori assumptions. I'm pretty sure you have to start somewhere and make some assumptions no matter what you do.

When we get to epistemology and ontology, to my mind it's more about deciding what assumptions you want to start with. I can't see a way not to start with some a priori presumptions. I think a minimal number that can be justified in common experience is probably the best way to start. And I think that's what we've done with science.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 11, 2018
As an example, our instruments can be arranged to show that the electron, is a particle,.... but then another choice of instrument can show just as conclusively that in fact that same electron (or any quantum entity, and even molecules), is a wave.
However, it seems there is no experiment we can do that can show the electron to be both simultaneously. And this appears to be a limitation in physics, not in our thought, since it appears to be a limit on possible experiments.

Since the limitation appears to be inherent to the physics of our universe, it doesn't seem to me to be epistemological but real. Yet, here we are discussing epistemology. I think this is a category error. You've changed the subject from thought to consensus reality, and your argument doesn't hold up after you do that.
[contd]
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 11, 2018
[contd]
These are alternative modes of thought.
No, experiment and observation are not thought. These are alternative modes of experiment.

Thought is not the basic premise; the basic premise is the evidence of our senses, and this is driven by the assumptions that this is reality and our senses are accurate. Once we accept that premise, we must accept repeatable experiment as denoting reality. That is when we start talking about physics.

Since such alternative modes of thought exist for the same entity of description, one must recognize that there are mind-dependencies going on here,..
I disagree. These are basic facts of physics in our universe. Once we can devise such experiments and show that they are mutually incompatible we are no longer talking about mind dependencies but physics dependencies.

[contd]
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 11, 2018
[contd]
extract these mind dependencies by inferring that the 'underlying reality', (that is, apart from observation) is neither a particle nor a wave but rather, is conceptually formless.
Again I disagree. Quantum reality is what it is; that we have to try to conceive of it using what appear to us to be conflicting concepts based upon our classical intuition doesn't disturb the math.

The conclusion from this is that experimental apparatus (thus mind) supplies the conceptual form for our knowledge of physics.
I disagree yet again with your premise that experimental apparatus is mind.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 11, 2018
...experimental apparatus is mind.
Certainly an extension of the mind. Reality is what drives the mind.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 12, 2018
...it was Carl Sagan who dared proffer that man has a purpose - that is, for the universe to see itself.
So our solar system formed out in some remote area of the galaxy between 2 spiral arms - in a low traffic area. Now the planet hunters find I believe that our solar system got everything bass ackwards in its formation. Most of the big planets form close into their suns but somehow we got it turned around. As a result we have the big boys out there to protect us from invaders. So we can thank our lucky stars as they say.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
.it's not a matter of 'proposing an alternative' way. Rather it's a matter of recognizing mind-dependent elements of thought, and then formulating theory such that those elements are not a-priori presumptions.

Hmmmm, this strikes me as a path that ends with nothing to think about and no one to think it.


Notice I said "so that those elements are not not a-priori presumptions". This isn't equivalent to "so that there are no such elements". Indeed,.....

Math and theory are both mind-dependent elements of thought. However, they are also based on and intended to represent the nature of our common perceptions, that which we call "reality," whatever that means.


Yes, exactly. You agree more with Hawking and me than you thought?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
So if we're going to talk about "mind dependent elements" I have to say that I can't see how to formulate a theory that doesn't include them, nor a way to formulate a theory that doesn't have any a priori assumptions.


Yes, again see Hawking quote. We seem to agree, perhaps more than you originally thought.

When we get to epistemology and ontology, to my mind it's more about deciding what assumptions you want to start with. [...|] And I think that's what we've done with science.

Exactly true. I would reference the entire debate between positivist / Copenhagen /matrix mechanics formulation vs the realist / Schroedinger-Einstein / wave mechanics. Of course both entirely different epistemological approaches must be equivalent if they're both empirically valid. The two paths were differentiated by different mind-dependent a-priori presumptions. The former approach deliberately sought to limit these, positivism.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
As an example, our instruments can be arranged to show that the electron, is a particle,.... but then another choice of instrument can show just as conclusively that in fact that same electron (or any quantum entity, and even molecules), is a wave.
However, it seems there is no experiment we can do that can show the electron to be both simultaneously. And this appears to be a limitation in physics, not in our thought, since it appears to be a limit on possible experiments.

Since the limitation appears to be inherent to the physics of our universe, it doesn't seem to me to be epistemological but real.


I can't agree with this. It's manifestly a limit of observability and conceptuality at the macroscopic scale. WE subject the underlying reality to the concept of wave and particle,.... it just exposes that these concepts individually can not span the underlying reality. The failure of Realism supports this contention in my view.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2018
These are alternative modes of thought.

No, experiment and observation are not thought. These are alternative modes of experiment

The definition of "observation" and of "phenomena" is intrinsically mind-dependent in terms of their conceptual component. This doesn't imply that objective reality isn't a component as well. No idealism here.

The Hilbert space (mathematical foundation of QM) requires one to supply the Operator which is to represent the measurement apparatus, as well as the basis space. This is a choice by the experimenter at the macroscopic scale.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2018
extract these mind dependencies by inferring that the 'underlying reality', (that is, apart from observation) is neither a particle nor a wave but rather, is conceptually formless.

Again I disagree. Quantum reality is what it is; that we have to try to conceive of it using what appear to us to be conflicting concepts based upon our classical intuition doesn't disturb the math.


Yes, which interjects necessarily concepts which originated from classical intuition. Necessarily because experiments are conducted and interpreted in classical reality. The underlying quantum reality is otherwise inconceivable. Your above statement seems to conflict with a few of your prior posts.

I disagree yet again with your premise that experimental apparatus is mind.


No, not exactly. My premise is that experiment necessarily has mind dependent components. At first you appeared to agree with this.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2018
To be clear, none of my posts are meant to effect the objectivity of physics. The history of physics has been an increased realization of the essence of Hawking's quote (and points of Kant's Critique). There are various interpretations of QM precisely on account of mind-dependent elements.

To acquire knowledge of Reality, is de facto, to dress it up in conceptual form.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2018

Edit: Repaired quote...

These are alternative modes of thought.

No, experiment and observation are not thought. These are alternative modes of experiment


The definition of "observation" and of "phenomena" is intrinsically mind-dependent in terms of their conceptual component. This doesn't imply that objective reality isn't a component as well. No idealism here.

The Hilbert space (mathematical foundation of QM) requires one to supply the Operator which is to represent the measurement apparatus, as well as the basis space. This is a choice by the experimenter at the macroscopic scale.


Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2018
It seems that whenever GhostofOtto gets his ass handed to him, he hides under his desk and I end up troll rated by know-nothings. GhostofOtto will remain on ignore for some time.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2018
@nou
and I end up troll rated by know-nothings
such arrogance, and all because you're ignorant of history

... you get troll rated because you troll rate others, and you've been told as much
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2018
To acquire knowledge of Reality, is de facto, to dress it up in conceptual form.
So I acquire knowledge of the existence of a new planet. Actually I just read about it. So now I have dressed it up in conceptual form?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
Exactly true. I would reference the entire debate between positivist / Copenhagen /matrix mechanics formulation vs the realist / Schroedinger-Einstein / wave mechanics. Of course both entirely different epistemological approaches must be equivalent if they're both empirically valid. The two paths were differentiated by different mind-dependent a-priori presumptions. The former approach deliberately sought to limit these, positivism.
But matrices and the Schroedinger approach are proven mathematically equivalent. I don't think it's correct to assert that they're different or in any kind of conflict given this. And the Schroedinger equations aren't actually wave equations; it's more proper to say they're wave-like. The same applies to the characterization of the matrix approach that has led to the Hilbert space representations used in current formulations of QFT as "particle based." In both cases there are significant departures from either wave or particle based descriptions.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
I can't agree with this. It's manifestly a limit of observability and conceptuality at the macroscopic scale. WE subject the underlying reality to the concept of wave and particle,.... it just exposes that these concepts individually can not span the underlying reality. The failure of Realism supports this contention in my view.
Again I must disagree; wave-like and particle-like representations both fail to fully describe quantum behavior, and the math doesn't explicitly denote either waves or particles, but only something that sometimes behaves in wave-like or particle-like fashions, depending on how you look at it.

But the equations predict the result of experiment, so that's just the way it is. It's neither wave nor particle; it's quantum mechanics. its divergence from classical mechanics is not a defect; it's a feature of reality.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2018
My premise is that experiment necessarily has mind dependent components.
One would certainly hope so. Beginning to wonder if anyone has actually done one. However a case in mind might be evolution. I understand evolution proceeds naturally by means of variability and natural selection.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2018
The definition of "observation" and of "phenomena" is intrinsically mind-dependent in terms of their conceptual component. This doesn't imply that objective reality isn't a component as well. No idealism here.
But, you see, you have attempted to explore the precedents from the consequents without showing that the consequents are wrong. You accept the evidence of repeatable observation but deny it means anything.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
But matrices and the Schroedinger approach are proven mathematically equivalent.

Yes, as I said,…. "Of course both entirely different epistemological approaches must be equivalent if they're both empirically valid."

I don't think it's correct to assert that they're different or in any kind of conflict given this.
Their approaches were different, as mentioned.

And the Schroedinger equations aren't actually wave equations; it's more proper to say they're wave-like.

Schroedinger started with the classical wave equation when he formulated it. Also, it describes the evolution of the wave-function.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
Again I must disagree

You say you don't agree, and then proceed to make similar posts,...

wave-like and particle-like representations both fail to fully describe quantum behavior

"it just exposes that these concepts individually can not span the underlying reality."

but only something that sometimes behaves in wave-like or particle-like fashions, depending on how you look at it.
"the experimental apparatus (designed and interpreted by mind) effectively creates the attributes" [failure of realism]

But the equations predict the result of experiment, so that's just the way it is. It's neither wave nor particle;
"it is neither a particle nor a wave but rather, is conceptually formless. The conclusion from this is that experimental apparatus (thus mind) supplies the conceptual form"

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
it's quantum mechanics. its divergence from classical mechanics is not a defect; it's a feature of reality.
"the strangeness is not the result of the problem with theory nor its supposed incompleteness."

The definition of "observation" and of "phenomena" is intrinsically mind-dependent in terms of their conceptual component. This doesn't imply that objective reality isn't a component as well. No idealism here.
You accept the evidence of repeatable observation but deny it means anything.

I have not questioned the objectivity of physics. I only deny that the conceptual form has an independent reality, and this is supported by QM.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." – B. d"Espagnat

I would have worded this differently,… i.e. QM is contextual.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
seems that whenever GhostofOtto gets his ass handed to him, he hides under his desk and I end up troll rated by know-nothings
such arrogance, and all because you're ignorant of history
What history are you referring to? Can you correct me?

... you get troll rated because you troll rate others, and you've been told as much

BS. I only down rate as a response to being unfairly troll rated, not before.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018


such arrogance


Arrogance is 1-rating me in this thread without sufficient knowledge of physics to articulate an specific objection,.... and arrogance is trying to "inform" one who clearly knows far more physics, it's history, mathematical formulation, and philosophy,... what science is and isn't,... all lacking an independent knowledge themselves.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
@DaSchneib

To elaborate the above point wrt Schroedinger equation, the wavefunction in the equation, usually denoted psi, has a general solution....
psi = e^i(kx - wt)

From Euler's formula,....

e^(ix) = cosx + i sinx

So, It is definitely a wave form. Also, Fourier transforms are used in QM to go from one conjugate basis to another.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2018
@nou
What history are you referring to?
yours
Can you correct me?
yes
I only down rate as a response to being unfairly troll rated, not before
calling your bullsh*t lie on that
Arrogance is 1-rating me in this thread without sufficient knowledge of physics to articulate an specific objection
arrogance would be your above demonstrated philo-bullsh*t but then getting pissed when called on it by anyone (like Otto) - making you
a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response
I explained this more than a few times to you as far back as at least APR 2016, hypocrite

.

I never bothered your QM debate with DaS - but philo-bullsh*t doesn't belong

tit-for-tat, ya troll
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
@nou
The Stumpy and Otto show is...
PS - when you call someone out for making a comment and they're not even involved in the thread, then you deserve to be downrated for that comment alone

you're the one who was so pissed at Otto making you look stupid that you took it out on me - ya hypocritical fraud

the only difference between you and zeph is that zeph has more sock-puppets

You lie to get attention, then you fob your beliefs off on everyone as being valid because you think that your legitimate opinion shouldn't be downrated - which you've historically claimed on PO

a direct quote of yours proves this
if I post a legitimate opinion it should not be 1-rated
boo-hoo
someone doesn't like your crap, so you troll others

now that is demonstrably D-K, with a lot of narcissistic APD as well, eh?
and that right there is just one more reason to downrate you
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
your above demonstrated philo-bullsh*t but then getting pissed when called on it by anyone (like Otto) - making you


You're not competent on the subject enough to assess it as BS, and frankly have no business rating my posts. I proved with references that Otto's contention was wrong, but because he is not objective minded, nor even possesses an interest or knowledge of physics apart from what he can webcrawl, he will NEVER admit to being wrong.

Ironically, you two dipsticks only bicker at this site, ...and yet have the nerve to objective to one posting on philosophy of physics, even without independent knowledge of the subject such that you can see it is obviously relevant to physics. I have many books written by prominent physicists on philosophy of physics, yet you two dolts think you know better, without even engaging in discussion of the topic? Unbelievable.

You're on Ignore as well for wasting my time.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
when you call someone out for making a comment and they're not even involved in the thread, then you deserve to be downrated for that comment alone

By then you had already 1-rated my posts in this thread, despite not being involved nor demonstrating any understanding,.... that's what drew me to your attention.

I don't bother down rating anyone unless first I'm unfairly troll rated. Fact. PS, Zephr posts non-mainstream theories,.... while I have never done so, and further I can reference prominent physicists for nearly everything I post.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
@nou
You're on Ignore as well for wasting my time
promises, promises
By then you had already 1-rated my posts in this thread
1- I rated a single post - the one you named me in without cause - until you started troll-rating

2- as for competency: philo-babble bullsh*t isn't science, it's subjective, therefore religion
I don't bother down rating anyone unless first I'm unfairly troll rated
liar - as noted, I rated a single post (as noted), so you retaliated with: https://phys.org/...kin.html

so you're a proven hypocrite and liar as well as admitted trolling idiot narcissist
PS, Zephr posts non-mainstream theories,.... while I have never done so
1- philo is opinion is subjective

2- as opinion is subjective, it's rating is dependent upon how the person sees it at that time

- so why should people uprate *your* opinion just because someone else shares it? lots of people think their zombie deity still lives...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
@nou cont'd
despite not being involved nor demonstrating any understanding
and you can tell this by a downrate in a comment where you irrationally include people who have nothing to do with the thread?

and this is logical to you?

moreover - I think your position above is tenuous at best and you already know that most of the physicists who specialise in the field also think like DaS does, so that would make you wrong by your own concensus standard because DaS can provide at least 3 to every 1 quote as refute making your *opinion* downratable
You're not competent on the subject enough to assess it
if you're talking QM - this is argument from ignorance

if Philo - then I am far more competent to judge philo-bullsh*t than you are

just because you majored in it doesn't mean it's worth anything, especially in science - it only means you're making bad decisions and can't be rational

PS - this is all a repeat of 2016 - it will end similarly, ya troll
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
I think your position above is tenuous at best


What's my position? Lets see if you can even articulate it.

None of your posts in this thread is about physics. You're just making vague and generalized proclamations without any substantive counter argument.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
You state that my position is tenuous, but yet do not convey what it is you're referring to. You state that philosophy is BS, but again make no specific reference to anything. These are vague and sweeping characterizations that can only lead to useless bickering.

As I told Otto, I have no interest in the idiotic "debate" over the validity of philosophy to physics. It is simply too stupid and vacuous.

Many prominent physicists have written on the subject. Here is a few books by W. Heisenberg,...

-Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science

-Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics

N. Bohr had written extensively on the subject, along with debates with Einstein. As mentioned above, Bell's early writings on the Bell Theorem, were originally printed in a specifically philosophy of physics publication, "epistemological Letters",... and on and on.

There is no debate whether philosophy of physics is relevant, it is rather if you're ignorant of it or not.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
@nou
You're on Ignore as well for wasting my time
guess not, eh?
typical narcissist - hence your further comment
None of your posts in this thread is about physics
of course, none of your philo-BS is about physics either -it's about someone's opinion of the evidence found in experiments

yet you seem to think to spam with that is ok, especially if you can tell others
or "demonstrate" your perceived superiority
You state that philosophy is BS, but again make no specific reference to anything
1- the message is conveyed clearly and concisely by both Otto and DS
there is no need to reiterate their points to you simply because you want attention

2- I wasn't even involved in messaging until you specifically called me out

and again: this isn't new - you always do the same BS
There is no debate whether philosophy of physics is relevant
true - it's not relevant
unless you're a philo major seeking attention because of your wasted money in college
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2018
@nou cont'd
N. Bohr had written extensively on the subject, along with debates with Einstein
1- Pope Francis also has written extensively on science within the church and history, but that doesn't mean religion is required or relevant to science

2- opinions, regardless of the perceived authority, are irrelevant as they only convey your confirmation bias or your need to validate your own beliefs
Many prominent physicists have written on the subject
Newton, one of the true greats, also wrote on religious topics

get the point yet?

(likely not, as you will continue to defend your position - more than probable that the reasoning is due to your financial or other investment, which makes you no different than any climate change denier or pseudoscience quack, really)
...making vague and generalized proclamations without any substantive counter argument
and yet this is the very foundation of philosophy - opinion over substance

hypocrite troll
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2018


Your claim that "my position is tenuous",... implies that you have an understanding of that position and it's supposed counter points,... but yet when I requested the following....

"What's my position? Lets see if you can even articulate it." - Noumenon

.... you completely ignore this, but yet choose to spend even more time posting vague characterizations with zero substance.

I must conclude (confirm my suspicion) , that you haven't read the above thread with any understanding, and therefore was lying when you claimed to possess an considered opinion.

I suspect that like Otto (thinking "ensemble" was philosophy), you don't actually know when I'm speaking philosophy or when I'm speaking physics.

Zephyr, despite AWT, knows more physics than you and at least is able to discuss the subject, unlike you and Otto, who are useless.

You're now on ignore again for being a fraud.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2018
To acquire knowledge of Reality, is de facto, to dress it up in conceptual form.
So I acquire knowledge of the existence of a new planet. Actually I just read about it. So now I have dressed it up in conceptual form?


Does the planet exist as a physical thing inside your brain? Of course not, so your knowledge-of-it has some form of representation that is dependent upon your intellectual facilities,... i.e. concepts are used to form a synthesis of experience (see Hawking & D'Espagnat quote above). Your brain/mind is not omnipotent, it's just a biological object that processes experience in a particular way.

QM exposes the artificiality of our a-priori concepts, so that QM is a science of experience,...( is contextual) .... and NOT a science of 'independent reality'. Examine any QM experiment and the results change given observer presence.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2018
was handed to him
Naw I just lost interest.
You didn't show me that, you bonehead, because I had already pointed that out myself in order to substantiate my counter point,.... that "philosophy of physics" was relevant to physics
"the newsletter was created because mainstream academic journals were reluctant to publish articles about the philosophy of quantum mechanics, especially anything that implied support for issues such as action at a distance."
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2018
"Physicist Andrew Whitaker writes that a powerful group of physicists centred on Niels Bohr (1885–1962), Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958) and Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976) made clear that "there was no place in physics – no jobs in physics! – for anybody who dared to question the Copenhagen interpretation" (Bohr's interpretation) of quantum theory.[5] Clauser writes that any inquiry into the "wonders and peculiarities" of quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement that went outside the "party line" was prohibited, in what he argues amounted to an "evangelical crusade."[4] Samuel Goudsmit (1902–1978), editor of the prestigious Physical Review, imposed a formal ban on the philosophical debate; he issued instructions to referees that they should feel free to reject material that even hinted at it."

-Like I said, Bell couldn't publish anywhere else.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2018
"Samuel Goudsmit (1902–1978), editor of the prestigious Physical Review, imposed a formal ban on the philosophical debate"

-How refreshing. Sadly, as formal philosophy became ever more impotent and irrelevant, the moratorium was apparently lifted at the insistence no doubt of university admins who needed to keep all that oak-paneled real estate occupied... thus allowing a whole new subgenre of physphilos to publish reams of nonsense that no one would read; and by doing so, make fools of themselves all over again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2018
Examine any QM experiment and the results change given observer presence
"Bohr insisted that year: '[I]t still makes no difference whether the observer is a man, an animal, or a piece of apparatus..."

-Apparently bohr understood the meaning of 'observer' and 'presence' and 'loony mysticism' better than you -?

Case in point;
QM exposes the artificiality of our a-priori concepts, so that QM is a science of experience,...( is contextual) .... and NOT a science of 'independent reality'. Examine any QM experiment and the results change given observer presence
-The discovery of anti-intuitive QM proved that context is irrelevant.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2018
The Copenhagen Interpretation is NOT the only present interpretation, therefore it was bias that prevented alternatives at the time.

Every time you post, you merely end up exposing more of your ignorance..... as pointed out several times,...

The Bell Theorem is one of the most important results in all of physics. All the major science journals on physics have had hundreds of papers publishing on account of it. This is an irrefutable fact.

Now, read this part carefully, numbnuts,.... —> the fact that it's genesis was in a philosophy of physics publication and NOT in a physics publication, demonstrates that philosophy of physics subsequently impacted physics,.... precisely refuting your idiotic contention that philosophy has not done so.

I'm no longer going to respond to your posts or Stumpy's.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
@nou
you completely ignore this
for good reason
1- it's subjective, therefore irrelevant
2- it's mine
3- it's not the reason you called me out on this thread

there isn't a reason to comply with your demands because it's not the topic under discussion between us, regardless of your desires
I must conclude (confirm my suspicion)
yet another demonstration of philo subjectivity and argument from ignorance

Argument from ignorance based on desire, not fact
like I said: you called me out and targeted me when I wasn't even voting or commenting

you hypocritical liar
Zephyr, despite AWT, knows more physics than you and at least is able to discuss the subject
wrong, and argument from ignorance again
I don't discuss physics with you because you always interject philo-BS

I've discussed physics with Otto, Zeph and others - which you seem to forget

fraudulent liars like you deserve to be treated as trolls

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
@nou
proof that you're a hypocrite liar:
Good advice, to ignore
You're on Ignore as well for wasting my time
You're now on ignore again
I'm no longer going to respond to your posts or Stumpy's
four times you use the word Ignore in reference to me, specifically
More to Otto

yet you still open and read the posts and argue your philo-crap while spreading blatantly false information just because you're so inept that you choose to promote a delusional claim based upon your hope

this is specifically demonstrated by the following
I must conclude (confirm my suspicion) , that you haven't read the above thread with any understanding
so, because you call me out by name, while not being involved in this thread
&
you want me to explain your own delusional beliefs while I've stated I think DS is correct
THEN
this is evidence that I don't understand?

ROTFLMFAO

definitely demonstrably delusional Dunning-Kruger pseudoscience at it's finest

thanks for the demo
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
you want me to explain your own delusional beliefs while I've stated I think DS is correct


I wanted you to substantiate your subjective and vague characterizations in an objective manner. The fact that this is posing a problem for you, depite willfully posting alot of jerry-springer junk, exposes you as a fraud.

You still have not explained what you are even referring to. You have not posted anything about physics here, nor any substance at all.

Any idiot can post vague characterizations without articulating what it is specifically that you object to and why.

Clearly, if in some other thread where you had already made dozens of posts, and someone came along and simply posted "Stumpy, I think what you're saying is tenuous and bs",.... the very first thing YOU would do is to inquire what they were referring to.

But because you're a complete fraud, and only interested in drive-by characterizations, normal objective discourse and decency doesn't apply for you.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
The fact is that neither you nor Stumpy knows enough physics, it's history, mathematical formulation, and philosophy of physics,... to refute me. Btw, DaScheib noted above, that he "doesn't know why people are down rating" me, and proceeded to engage and we agreed on more than we disagreed.

I will not read further posts by you two dipsticks,.... I agree with DaSchnieb that Otto never seems to post anything interesting, and in fact this applies much more so to you Stumpy, for at least Otto puts an effort in, despite failing to admit when wrong.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
@nou
I wanted you to substantiate your subjective and vague characterizations in an objective manner
I predicted you would answer, and you did
even though I'm on ignore...
confirming me, not you
But because you're a complete fraud...
LOL
this coming from a blatant liar who not only gets pissed when people don't agree with his opinion, but things that subjective philosophy is relevant to physics...

then rants about being proven an idiot, ignorant, fraud and liar when he, for absolutely no reason, *literally* picked a fight with someone not even posting (or rating) in the thread

.

but somehow this is my display of a lack of "normal objective discourse and decency"

ROTFLMFAO

the evidence clearly shows your projection, delusion and purile mentality
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
@nou
Btw, DaScheib noted above, that he "doesn't know why people are down rating" me, and proceeded to engage and we agreed on more than we disagreed
1- I didn't rate you at all until you started posting my name and wrongly including me in your infantile projection displayed above

2- I explained exactly why I downrated your posts in this thread. I also have historically told you I would do this, and I provided quotes so you could google the thread from 2016

3- I don't care what anyone else thinks

4- the rating mechanism is a subjective interpretation- people rate differently based upon personal criteria, again, which I've historically explained (2016 and more)
I will not read further posts by you two dipsticks
yup. you already promised that
ignore
https://www.youtu...8Sx4B2Sk

lastly: I can admit when I'm wrong
I've historically done as much here
you?

Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2018
...Your brain/mind is not omnipotent, it's just a biological object that processes experience in a particular way....Examine any QM experiment and the results change given observer presence.
Just look how far our philosophy has come since "I think therefore I am." Actually it might be more accurate to omit the "therefore".
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2018
Examine any QM experiment and the results change given observer presence.
Typical observer trapped perhaps by lack of understanding of Kant's existentialism. The Copenhagen interpretation problem seems rooted in a misunderstanding of the meaning of the results. QM describes the propagation of probability distributions and nobody seems to realize this or what it means to the observer who samples this distribution. The difference between a wave and a particle is like the difference between a population and an individual. Philosophy, or ignorance thereof, takes its toll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
Now, read this part carefully, numbnuts,.... —> the fact that it's genesis was in a philosophy of physics publication and NOT in a physics publication, demonstrates that philosophy of physics subsequently impacted physics,.... precisely refuting your idiotic contention that philosophy has not done so
No, try this:

The only reason that 'beables' paper was published in an underground philo publication was because mainstream science wouldn't allow it to be published in science journals.

You didn't even read what I posted.

Hey stump nou is now trolling us. He even downrates me in other threads to get me to return to this thread.

Must be desperate for attention poor baby. Like bell he couldn't get it anywhere else but in a popsci venue. Nobody else responds to his crap.

Stone walls do not a prison make...
https://youtu.be/kBTVvAqnpNE

So sad.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
The only reason that [John Bell, one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century] paper was published in an underground philo publication was because mainstream science wouldn't allow it to be published in science journals.


As I already pointed out, 1) I'M THE ONE who pointed this fact out TO YOU, the purpose being to emphasize the fact that Bell's result originated in a philosophy of physics publication,.... as your contention was that philosophy of physics did not impact science. The Bell theorem is one of the most important in all of science. Irrefutable fact.

2) That his early writings could not be published in a mainstream science journal, only serves to emphasize that it was philosophy of physics, .... which is the core point that refutes you.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
Here is my post, that preceded yours, for the 3rd time,....

The Bell theorem, a theoretical experiment in the form of correlation inequalities, was a result which has become foundational to quantum mechanics, perhaps even, "the most profound in science" (Stapp, 1975),... had it's genesis in a publication, the specific purpose of which was an outlet for philosophy of physics THAT WOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED IN MAINSTREAM SCIENCE JOURNALS, and was even entitled "Epistemological Letters". - Noumenon


In any case, the Copenhagen interpretation had a great influence on physics during the time, since the key physicists who developed the core mathematical foundation of QM , apart from Schroedinger, all sympathized with it. Many physicists subsequently complained about this, as it was NOT the only interpretation possible!! The 2nd time I pointed this out.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
Typical observer trapped perhaps by lack of understanding of Kant's existentialism
The typical observer is trapped by the illusion that kants unfathomable rubbish contained any meaning whatsoever.

The CoPR - like any holy book it was written so that people could interpret it any way they wanted.
https://philosoph...critique

"In the Russian port city of Rostov-on-Don two men were having a beer this weekend and talking about the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (of course), when something went terribly wrong. An argument broke out, critical reason went out the window, and one man ended getting shot with rubber bullets. He's in the hospital with non life-threatening injuries. The shooter now faces up to 10 years in jail, where he'll have lots of time to ponder Kant's theories."

haha
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2018
No, that's not the only reason,.. he drank my beer.

Abraham Pais, a renowned nuclear physicist and physics historian, stated that Niels Bohr was the "natural successor to Immanuel Kant".

Of course, 'The Stumpy, Ira, and Otto show', having never read Kant with comprehension, is utterly obviously as to way the prominent nuclear physicist would say this,... nor is it difficult for an objective person to consider Pais opinion of more value than the 'The Stumpy, Ira, and Otto show'.

As already mentioned Einstein thought science "unthinkable" apart from epistemology,.... but maybe Otto knows better?

Of course this doesn't mean that Kant was right in everything he stated,.... but Otto has no clue and has NEVER articulated where Noumenon agrees and disagrees with Kant,.... thus his "arguments" have zero basis in objectivity.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
That his early writings could not be published in a mainstream science journal, only serves to emphasize that it was philosophy of physics
I thought bells theorem was science. And I thought that he would have preferred that it be published in a respectable mainstream academic journal, not "a hand-typed, mimeographed, "underground" physics newsletter about quantum physics that was sent out to a private mailing list, or what physicist John Clauser called a "quantum subculture... an open and informal journal allowing confrontation and ripening of ideas before publishing in some adequate journal."

- But he didn't have a choice.

Correct?

"any inquiry into the "wonders and peculiarities" of quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement that went outside the "party line" was prohibited, in what he argues amounted to an "evangelical crusade."

- Sorry but the venue doesnt determine the nature of the content. Like you posting philopap here doesnt make it physics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
course, 'The Stumpy, Ira, and Otto show', having never read Kant with comprehension, is utterly obviously as to way the prominent nuclear physicist would say this
The FACT that poor suffering noumenon posts here instead of some place where could receive what he would consider competent criticism only reveals that he is a gutless and cowardly has-been who knows that physorg is the only place where he can pretend to be superior, and pretend to get away with it.

That's the only reason you're here isn't it? Nou? Your theories are really secondary to the juggling show you perform every day in front of the mirror isn't it?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2018
EDIT: "... is utterly [oblivious] as to why....

You're simply not informed or intelligent or honest enough to realize that the fact that the Bell Theorem had its genesis in a philosophy of physics publication, and not in a mainstream physics journal, supports MY point, and COUNTERS yours. What is hilarious is that you keep making this very point, one that I had already stated and relied upon in my original counter to you.

You have the advantage here because you only need to convince other midgets like Ira and Caliban and Stumpy,.... while I'm burdened with actual knowledge of physics and is independent of web-crawling.

The Bell theorem would eventually impact science,... thus there are literally thousands of papers and dozens of experiments conducted on account of it. It would subsequently be published in science journals....

Thus, PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY IMPACT PHYSICS, BOTH THEORETICALLY AND EXPERIMENTALLY.

This is only one example of many.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2018
...The typical observer is trapped by the illusion that kants unfathomable rubbish contained any meaning whatsoever.
IOW, over your head. I understand.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
You're simply not informed or intelligent or honest enough to realize
-See? There it is.

Post somewhere where you wouldn't be able to say that. But because of the nature of formal philosophy, any philo gets to say that about his critics no matter who, or what, or where.

That is what makes it especially foul.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2018
...The typical observer is trapped by the illusion that kants unfathomable rubbish contained any meaning whatsoever.
IOW, over your head. I understand.


Exactly, Otto has never read Kant. If Kant was gibberish, then physicists like Abraham Pais, Bohr, Einstein, etc,... would never had referenced his name.

But facts and objectivity is not important to the Stumpy, Ira, and Otto show.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
Post somewhere where you wouldn't be able to say that
- and might I suggest physforums where genuine physicists would get to say that about you. Or worse, simply ignore you like they do in real life.
Exactly, Otto has never read Kant. If Kant was gibberish
Funny, I'm getting this exact same argument in another thread from a muslim about the quran.

I'm not going to bother learning either Arabic or philospeak.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
You're simply not informed or intelligent or honest enough to realize
-See? There it is.

Post somewhere where you wouldn't be able to say that. But because of the nature of formal philosophy, any philo gets to say that about his critics no matter who, or what, or where.

That is what makes it especially foul.


If you're making an objection, then it's your burden to understand the subject, to know whether "ensemble" is a physics term or philosophy. I posted a lot on pure physics above. In point of fact, I only reference physicists for my points, despite you unfairly tying me to traditional philosophy. My points here wrt philosophy of physics is to refute metaphysics in science, to refute Scientific Realism. Your line of attack on me exposes that you're oblivious to this fact !

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
My points here wrt philosophy of physics is to refute metaphysics in science, to refute Scientific Realism. Your line of attack on me exposes that you're oblivious to this fact !
And from your perspective you're apparently trying to teach Scientific Realism to the 2nd grade. And that's fulfilling for you?

You're here to pretend to be something you're not.

Relevant.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2018
- and might I suggest physforums where genuine physicists would get to say that about you. Or worse, simply ignore you like they do in real life.


You're making unwarranted speculations here, the behaviour of a troll. I have posted there before and have never been banned nor posts deleted or moved. I follow their posting rules,.. but haven't posted there in some time because it's more interesting to read texts/books by physicists and their format is dry.

Why don't you post at the jerry-springer forum or at a metaphilosophy forum?

I post physics here,.... more so than the Stumpy, Ira, and Otto show,.... so you're not qualified to be thought-police here.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
Exactly, Otto has never read Kant. If Kant was gibberish, then physicists like Abraham Pais, Bohr, Einstein, etc,... would never had referenced his name
But the bible is gibberish and they all tended to reference god didn't they? Their universities had depts of both philosophy and theology to acknowledge and support. Thats called politics.

That gen is dead. The last gen of scientists who typically paid dutiful homage to god, is dead. The current gen, many of whom i quoted above, have no use for theories about the nature of knowledge or being or thought. No matter how many words you dump here. According to THEM, what you're doing is not physics.

I provided quotes.

And I don't need to be fluent in kantsprache to appreciate THEIR conclusions about formal philosophy, nor to share their conclusions here.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2018
@ Nounemon-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

Skippy what this foolishment is, eh?

Ira,

And.
like Ira

And.
Ira,

And.
Ira,


You have the Ira-Skippy on the brain this morning? Skippy I have not written any messages to you on this article Or any messages about you too. Or on any other article. It has been about two weeks since I wrote a message for anybody and that last few was to Really-Skippy not you.

So now that you got my attention that you seem to be begging for, what it is you want? You have wore out your silly looking pointy cap and want the new one? No problem Skippy, here you go, just for you A BRAND NEW SHINY SILLY LOOKING POINTY CAP. Is there anything else I can help you with today?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. You do not have to beg four times in one article, that is taking advantage of the nice peoples at phyorg's niceness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
You have the Ira-Skippy on the brain this morning? Skippy I have not written any messages to you on this article Or any messages about you too. Or on any other article. It has been about two weeks since I wrote a message for anybody and that last few was to Really-Skippy not you
He lives in the past poor guy.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
@otto
Must be desperate for attention poor baby. Like bell he couldn't get it anywhere else but in a popsci venue. Nobody else responds to his crap
he is desperate
and also, regardless of the point I reiterated multiple times and have warned him about for years, he also continues to drag me into his pissing contest just because you proved he was an idiot

NPD often requires attention (of any kind), so he needs to get his fix by posting blatantly false BS to elicit your response - or mention people not even in a thread

this is validated multiple times above
has never read Kant
You're simply not informed or intelligent or honest enough
never mind that superior evidence makes the point against him

funniest thing is: you're supposed to be on ignore, Otto!
again
or is that still?

and notice his name dropping argument from authority?
LMFAO

.

.
Hey @Ira
Je t'ai envoyé un message! Paix!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
You have the Ira-Skippy on the brain this morning? Skippy I have not written any messages to you on this article Or any messages about you too
@Ira
when a philo crank can't get attention for his epically stupid investment in a philo degree, and since it is useless in society, then how else can one get attention?

he is projecting his faults onto others! funniest line above is
But because you're a complete fraud, and only interested in drive-by characterizations, normal objective discourse and decency doesn't apply for you
oh, the irony, eh? LMFAO

he dragged me in the same way: but I was bored, so I showed how he was a liar, crank, delusional narcissistic D-K philo projecting his epic failure of a life

he will simply transfer that all towards you and otto now

even though Otto is also on ignore, like I am
LMFAO
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2018
@ Otto-Skippy and @ Captain-Skippy too.

I wonder why all the couyons come here to try to pretend to be smart? Why they can not go to someplace where people will want to hear all about their smartness?

If all I could get is insults and disrespect of my greatness and peoples making me the misere, I would try to find some other place to spread it around where my smartness would be more appreciated. (Maybe he thinks that sooner or later than sooner we will come around and let him be the smartest Skippy in the yard.)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2018
he will simply transfer that all towards you and otto now


I guess he missed the philo-Skippy classes on groundhog day. Being the couyon that he seems to want to be, he'll probably try to make it my fault he begged for my attention and I just decided that I would slap him around because I did not have anything better to do. Choot, I did not write him a message for almost a year now, and he thinks of me four times in one day in one article?

Hooyeei, they must give out those philo-Skippy degrees to any couyon who asks for them because I can think of one really stupid Skippy who is really proud of his. (Probably as easy to get as a silly looking pointy cap, eh?)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
@ira
Why they can not go to someplace where people will want to hear all about their smartness?
like where?
if they create their own page like zeph, they have to seek out validation still (see: zeph, gkam, bubba, jvk, and so many more)

if someone "recognizes" their "intelligence", it's gravy, this is true - but they seek attention because of some internal failure and overwhelming craving; a need

they honestly have no other means to get attention IRL, so they poke here (and other sites)

consider the evidence:
how pathetic must he feel that he had to intentionally pick a fight with two people not even voting or posting in a thread just because Otto proved he was a liar

then continually tell us all that we're on ignore while posting back

not even going to point out the projection, etc that I've listed and proven above...

.

.

maybe he is an abused spouse?
it's something to consider
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
@Ira
I did not write him a message for almost a year now, and he thinks of me four times in one day in one article?
he did the same to me

.

something to think on:
abused spouse

he has a "clique" of go-to people he knows he can get regular attention from, regardless of the contentious nature of the dialogue (like above with DS in any QM thread - they don't agree, but DS will argue a point in QM; special topic, special circumstance, attention)

but he loses the argument spectacularly

historically, this is where the spouse pushes the issue to reinforce what a failure he is (verbal/physical abuse)

result: lashing out to those they feel superior to (doesn't matter the reason - maybe he hates our real jobs? hates your accent and bilingual ability?)

let's drag them into the fight for validation of his epic failure in life

results confirm he is a loser failure in life

a vicious circle of confirmation due to abuse

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2018
The FACT that poor suffering noumenon posts here instead of some place where could receive what he would consider competent criticism


You're someone who is willing to literally make up characterizations like this about others. You're not objective minded.

In fact, I do post at other sites, as well as in person, and had long email discussions. I read this site as a news site and have had discussions here as well. I don't recall ever having a physics discussion with the Stumpy, Ira, and Otto cartoon show, however.

As I said, I post more on core physics here than The Stumpy, Ira, and Otto cartoon show, combined,.... and since you're willing to flood the site with useless bickering and attacks, rather than substantive discussion,... then I would say my posts are of more value and you're not in a position to be thought-police.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
My points here wrt philosophy of physics is to refute metaphysics in science, to refute Scientific Realism. Your line of attack on me exposes that you're oblivious to this fact !

And from your perspective you're apparently trying to teach Scientific Realism to the 2nd grade.


No, I would expect that a second grader would have more sense than to attempt to debate a subject without first having personally studied it,..... Kant, physics,.... and to have read my post carefully.

You attempt to imply (wrongly) that I don't converse with knowledgeable people on the subject (and despite my sources being many prominent physicists, ),.... but here you are doing exactly that, trying to "debate" whilst admitting that you must do so through proxy,... without independent knowledge yourself.

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
@nou
I don't recall ever having a physics discussion with the Stumpy...
1- I don't discuss philosophy with pretentious overbearing trolls who seek to undermine evidence-based scientific argument with delusional regurgitations of their philo-belief

2- you don't discuss physics with me because you always tangentially refer to your philo- beliefs or some argument from authority

that isn't supposition, guess, faith or even belief:
I predicted it years ago
you've proven that with your repeated interactions with me
and you've validated that above with your DS comments

therefore you and I will never discuss physics
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2018
No, I would expect that a second grader would have more sense than to attempt to debate a subject without first having personally studied it,..... Kant, physics,.... and to have read my post carefully
You are so desperate to demonstrate your wordiness aren't you? Why do you insist on doing so in a place where people only make fun of you?

Personally I prefer to cite your betters - Dennett, rand, krauss, hawking, feynman, tyson at al... as well as the 1000s of physicists who are silent on the matter because they could care less what you physphilos are doing.

They're the ones you're denigrating, not us. And I really do hate people who come here and trash scientists.

@stump - 5/5 on that post
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2018
@Noum, I had intended to get back to this thread before this. Basically what I'm arguing is that while there may be limitations of mind involved in the apparent contradictions between classical and quantum physics, those are imposed by physics, not by the nature of our minds. If there is any part of it caused by the structure of our minds, it is due to the objective nature of physics' effects on the development of our minds. Unless I've misunderstood you, you are claiming it's a matter of the structure of our minds; I see this as opposed to my view that it's a matter of physics. So let's sit back a bit and see whether we understand each others' positions well.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2018
@Noum, just some advice: I'd leave @Ira out of this. @Ira just doesn't like chickensxxt, and never addressed you. You should probably apologize for mixing him in and move on. As far as I can see you haven't posted any chickensxxt on this thread. And @Ira seems to have stipulated to this. You probably shouldn't borrow trouble; I've found it's a bad policy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2018
@Ira, bonjour cher, how you doin' down in the Southland? I guess your boat's still floatin'. I been havin' some personal troubles out West here, me, but I'm still breathin' so there's still hope.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2018
...while there may be limitations of mind involved in the apparent contradictions between classical and quantum physics, those are imposed by physics, not by the nature of our minds
I see no contradictions whatever. The problem likely being a misunderstanding about probability - the real meaning of the wave equation.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2018
Realism - a property or object that is known independent of observation.
Blind faith. The holy grail. The Holy of Holies. Faith that there really is an independent reality. Whereas in fact our color perception, or sound perception, may be different for each individual. What I see as red, for example, many people's image in their minds may be the same as my image for green.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2018
while there may be limitations of mind involved in the apparent contradictions between classical and quantum physics, those are imposed by [*]physics, not by the nature of our minds
*There are two ways of speaking when saying "physics" here; either meaning "our knowledge of…" or referring to "The underlying Reality".

If, as it seems, you're referring to "The underlying Reality", then one can indeed step beyond the nature of our minds, and imagine or infer that physical Reality is consistent with no actual contradictions, and also accounts for emergent classicality, including minds and all possible thoughts, etc.

It's easy to agree with this, but it is a metaphysical way of speaking, and one not supported by QM ("our knowledge of…")….
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2018
The apparent contradiction between "our knowledge of…" and "The underlying Reality", is manifest in the {Measurement Problem} of quantum mechanics; The deterministic evolution of the Schrodinger equation, from which decoherence was derived, does not result in 'collapse of the wavefunction' and so, does not resolve into particular attribute values, but rather merely resolves a superposition state into a mixed state.

The Everett-Bohm theory, with "metaphysical baggage", let the mathematical structure do the physics, but as a result, ran into the preferred basis problem, which is essentially a failure to link the mathematical formulation to experience…..
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2018
What I am saying is that the apparent contradictions between classical and quantum physics, result from linking the mathematical structure to experience,…. precisely because to do so, we must add the conceptual form to the underlying reality, as an a-priori necessity to observation being at all possible (in design of macroscopic apparatus, and interpretation of the results). IOW, to provide a basis and so to span possible attribute vales to psi as normalized.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2018
If there is any part of it caused by the structure of our minds, it is due to the objective nature of physics' effects on the development of our minds.

I agree that our brains are a product of physical reality and certainly subject to physical laws, ultimately to QM.

However, our minds are an *emergent phenomena, that have evolved to form a synthesis of macroscopic experience, and so has it's own "laws" for doing so in the conceptual structure it adds as a component of phenomenal reality. The contradictions are that these 'forms of thought' are exposed as artificial when used at the quantum scale,…. and indeed the failure of realism shows that attributes as such don't exist prior to measurement, they are created by the act of measurement....
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2018
@Noum, just some advice: I'd leave @Ira out of this. @Ira just doesn't like chickensxxt, and never addressed you. You should probably apologize for mixing him in and move on. As far as I can see you haven't posted any chickensxxt on this thread. And @Ira seems to have stipulated to this. You probably shouldn't borrow trouble; I've found it's a bad policy.


I don't generally have a problem with Ira. He put himself on my radar screen when he 5-rated Stumpy's bickering which contained only vacuous and subjective mischaracterizations with no substance nor physics nor even any specific reference to anything I posted. I thought then that Ira must think this is acceptable discourse.

Besides, "The Stumpy, Ira, and Otto cartoon show", sounds better with "Ira" included. Not to mention I am troll rated by either Ira, Stumpy, Otto, or Caliban, or all of them (not that I care about cowards who hide under their desk)

Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 18, 2018
* to expand on "our minds are an *emergent phenomena"....

As an analogy, qualia is an emergent phenomena, in that colour (sound, and pain, etc), do not exist in objects themselves, but as perceptions, colours are created entirely in the mind. Such qualia as experienced phenomena are inexplicable from physical laws,... which is to say they are emergent "laws". Likewise, forms of thought as necessary conditions for experience to be possible, are emergent.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2018
emergent classicality, including minds and all possible thoughts, etc
heehee
ran into the preferred basis problem, which is essentially a failure to link the mathematical formulation to experience….
('...' means 'More to come so get ready...)
our minds are an *emergent phenomena, that have evolved to form a synthesis of macroscopic experience, and so has it's own "laws" for doing so in the conceptual structure it adds as a component of phenomenal reality
Ahaahaaa
and indeed the failure of realism shows that attributes as such don't exist prior to measurement, they are created by the act of measurement....
and indeed and inevitably and so and so forth...
As an analogy, qualia is an emergent phenomena, in that colour (sound, and pain, etc), do not exist in objects themselves, but as perceptions, colours are created entirely in the mind
-or perhaps, like windmills...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2018
forms of thought as necessary conditions for experience to be possible, are emergent

https://youtu.be/Vi2TIV3rYzc

Boob for all seasons...
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2018
I don't generally have a problem with Ira.
Then why you want attract my attention while you are arguing with the Captain-Skippy and the Otto-Skippy?

He put himself on my radar screen when he 5-rated Stumpy's bickering which contained only vacuous and subjective mischaracterizations with no substance nor physics nor even any specific reference to anything I posted.
Cher, you got to understand that I am allowed to vote for anybody or nobody any time I want and I don't have to check with you to make sure my vote meets your approvement.

I thought then that Ira must think this is acceptable discourse.
Non Cher, when I got some discoursing to do, you won't need to think, you will know.

Not to mention I am troll rated by either Ira,
I can make that happen if you want.

not that I care about cowards who hide under their desk
You care enough to write about it. Usually I don't have much to say about things I don't care about.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2018
He put himself on my radar screen when he 5-rated Stumpy's bickering which contained only vacuous and subjective mischaracterizations with no substance nor physics nor even any specific reference to anything I posted. I thought then that Ira must think this is acceptable discourse.

Cher, you got to understand that I am allowed to vote for anybody or nobody any time I want and I don't have to check with you to make sure my vote meets your approvement

And likewise, I am allowed to react in kind and draw conclusions from your voting and troll-rating behaviour, no? I did not question whether your're allowed to or imply that your should check with me first,... so what are you going on about?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2018
And likewise, I am allowed to react in kind and draw conclusions from your voting behaviour, no?
Well Skippy, if you want to post up all your wrong concludings up here for everybody to see you are welcome to do that.

I did not question whether your're allowed to or imply that your should check with me first,... so what are you going on about?
Then what heck for are you doing all this whining about 5 votes and who I give them to? If you are not questioning my votes, why are you making the wrong conclusions about them? Before you can conclude about something, you first got have a question about something. Didn't they teach you anything in the philo-Skippy school?

from your voting and troll-rating behaviour
I can make that happen if you want me to.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2018
The fly in the ointment is, the physics we know is verified by experiment and observation, and therefore accurately, if not completely, represents the actual physical events, what you call the underlying reality. And as we now know the math is the only correct description; natural language based on classical physics and its logic doesn't work. But that doesn't make it inconceivable; it just makes it counter-intuitive. And in fact, by and large, the classical physics can be recovered from the quantum physics; it's just the other way around that doesn't work quite right.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2018
Here's why I made such a point of the FT: it describes the 2LOT, which is a lemma of thermodynamics, and is derived only from three assumptions, one of which is time-reversal symmetry of quantum mechanics. Yet in classical physics, it describes the 2LOT, which is manifestly asymmetric far from equilibrium. This is one of the reasons I say that classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2018
...colour (sound, and pain, etc), do not exist in objects themselves, but as perceptions, colours are created entirely in the mind.
Sort of like an illusion. So if you're color blind, the rest of us must be delusional. Call it extreme anti-existentialism.

Actually I think the existentialists have a point and so do you, and reality exists in the relation between these two points. Ergo, it's all relative. Here we go again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
Then what heck for are you doing all this whining about 5 votes and who I give them to?
I think we will need to 1/5 everything noumenon posts from now on to force him to use his socks to 5/5 himself back up again.
it describes the 2LOT, which is a lemma of thermodynamics
Lemma... lemma... lessee here

"Lemma (mathematics), a type of proposition
Lemma (morphology), the canonical or citation form of a word
Lemma (psycholinguistics), a mental abstraction of a word about to be uttered
Headword, in lexica; by extension, lemma in this sense can mean the title or heading for any entry in such a work as an encyclopedia
Lemma (logic), a contention
Lemma (botany), a part of a grass plant
Lemma (album), by John Zorn"

- Hmmm. I pick #3.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
The fly in the ointment is, the physics we know is verified by experiment and observation, and therefore accurately, if not completely, represents the actual physical events, what you call the underlying reality.


Okay, lets make some definitions for clarity....

- "underlying reality"; I referred to this above as metaphysical, conceptually formless, and unscientific, (albeit useful as a delimiting concept as in "Noumenon")
- "our knowledge of.."; This just refers to the theoretical description, of which there is no other way of referring to observable phenomena. It is physics.
- "phenomena"; This is what science pertains to, it is dependent upon observability, and the conditions necessary.

Above I *'ed your use of the word "physics" as pertaining to "underlying reality" and therefore metaphysics and again your above phrase "the actual physics" seems to concur.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
Physics can only refer to "phenomena" which as a prerequisite requires observability,.... and therefore necessarily epistemological elements,... as this is what phenomena means,... that is, that which is subject to observation/ perception. (Experimental apparatus does not change this fact.)

Science can only say that the theoretical description accurately predicts phenomena.

With this, how is my position a fly in the ointment?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
IOW, it appears to me that you're referring to "the underlying reality" as opposed to "phenomenal reality", and so I wanted to point out this distinction as it is central to the point of epistemology being a component of QM, as expressed for example in the failure of realism from Bell theorem, the wave/particle duality, etc, and Hawking/D'Espagnat quotes.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
Physics can only refer to "phenomena" which as a prerequisite requires observability,.... and therefore necessarily epistemological elements,... as this is what phenomena means,... that is, that which is subject to observation/ perception. (Experimental apparatus does not change this fact.)

Science can only say that the theoretical description accurately predicts phenomena.

With this, how is my position a fly in the ointment?
The theoretical description? What theoretical description? Accuracy? What accuracy?

Do we have a theoretical description which accurately predicts the big bang, assuming such an event actually occurred?

Does our epistemology allow for assumptions?

Actually without assumptions could there be any epistemology?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2018
@DaSchneib, the following two posts can be ignored for our discussion, it's mainly for Seeker and to confound Stumpy&Otto.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible" - Einstein

Taking "comprehensible" to mean "able to make predictions" (as we know that QM is non-intuitive),.... this is referring to the problem of knowledge, long discussed in philosophy and which was the core attempted solution by Kant ("how is science possible"); i.e....If all our knowledge is based on sense experience so that physics is merely a theoretical description for linking observables for the purpose of making predictions (induction as opposed to deduction), and as Hume showed there is no analytic link between cause and effect as it is merely a constant conjunction of events, then how is it that science works?

....
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
Kant attempted to answer this question, with his "Coperican revolution", that rather than our concepts conform to reality, ... rather reality must conform to our concepts as an a-priori condition for experience to be possible. This to me is supported by the Bell theorem, failure of realism.

[Kant did make some mistakes pertaining to geometry and couldn't have foreseen the possibility of non-intuitive yet predictive science.]

What theoretical description? Accuracy?


By 'theoretical description', I'm referring to the mathematical theory, QM, QFT, GR, etc. By accuracy what ever is possible given the experimental apparatus to the extent of the uncertainty principle.

Does our epistemology allow for assumptions?


All experiments and theories make hypothesis and postulates,... as in the Bell inequality type experiments,... i.e. under the assumption of Einstein separability,... . See Hawking quote above as well.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
Here's why I made such a point of the FT: it describes the 2LOT, which is a lemma of thermodynamics, and is derived only from three assumptions, one of which is time-reversal symmetry of quantum mechanics. Yet in classical physics, it describes the 2LOT, which is manifestly asymmetric far from equilibrium. This is one of the reasons I say that classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics.


We agree that classical physics is emergent from quantum physics.

I think the Loschmidt's paradox, which is what I think you're referring to,... is merely on account of the fact that We are quantifying an epiphenomenon that is dependent upon a whole complex system, but nature only "cares" about individual mechanical interactions. It requires a mind to notice over-arching patterns like this that are not the results of separate forces,... i.e. there no entropy force,... nor any dog-barking force.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
Btw, even in classical physics it is theoretically possible that entropy decreases momentarily even despite being far from equilibrium,... it is just exceedingly improbable proportionately as the degrees of freedom of the system and the time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
lets make some definitions for clarity
I think you mean 'lets make UP some definitions for clarity'

-Just for clarity...

If you wants to be taken seriously then he should source accepted defs rather than making them up himself. But then...

"My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless—a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors." -Dan Dennett

-An enduring criticism and a key weakness of the whole formal philosophy lexicon... they typically use widely-accepted terms that are indefinable. Worse than useless.

Hey nou - what was that -ism from around the beginning of the 20th century that wanted to replace all your buzzwords with common everyday language?

I understand they gave up because the the words weren't indefinable per se but they were being used to try to describe nonexistent things... Like 'the nature of knowledge.

Help me out here.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
Okay, lets make some definitions for clarity....

- "underlying reality"; I referred to this above as metaphysical, conceptually formless, and unscientific, (albeit useful as a delimiting concept as in "Noumenon")
See, this is where I think we're getting tangled up.

Reality *is*. If you fall off an ocean liner and drown, you're dead. If you get run over by a bus ditto. If you find new physics and win a Nobel prize, again, ditto. If you're going to make assumptions, the first one is that there is reality, it exists, and it's not made up in our minds but is separate from us.

It's all very well to talk about it as if it's some abstract concept, but it's not helpful and apparently not true, considering buses and Nobel prizes. I think Einstein, Hawking, and you have all forgotten this. And I think this is where you and I disagree.

If we disagree; I still think so but I could be wrong.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
All experiments and theories make hypothesis and postulates,... as in the Bell inequality type experiments,... i.e. under the assumption of Einstein separability,... . See Hawking quote above as well.

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason [epistemology]. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. [a-priori conditions for thought to be possible]" - Stephen Hawking

The quote you were referring to I presume. Problem being such a prolific writer you can fall into unsuspecting traps, like the word THE in "the interpretive structure..." IOW, it seems like we are all wired a bit differently.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
@DaSchneib,

It is possible to describe and predict Buses and Nobel prizes and oceans via theoretical description. They're amendable to scientific investigation, and they are observable., so they qualify as experienced phenomena.

In fact I'm trying to clarify wording so that we are referring to reality that science can deal with and not metaphysics, which is actually the abstraction....

So, when referring to "the actual physics" , what does this mean? If you mean "the underlying reality" as described above, as if apart from observability and theoretical description, it is metaphysics and unscientific.

It is certainly valid to believe in an independent objective reality , as I certainly do (as conceptually formless), but in discussions of QM, it is necessary to be clear on this point,.... there is no other valid means of referring to quantum reality except via theoretical description.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
there is reality, it exists, and it's not made up in our minds but is separate from us.


The notion that reality is made up in our minds is Idealism,..., which I have not advocated. Nor of course does Hawking.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2018
@DaSchneib
It is certainly valid to believe in an independent objective reality , as I certainly do (as conceptually formless), but in discussions of QM, it is necessary to be clear on this point,.... there is no other valid means of referring to quantum reality except via theoretical description.
Note belief is a matter of faith. Hang in there, O Faithful Ones.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
The notion that reality is made up in our minds is Idealism,...,
Not sure if it's made up or not, but it sure does somehow end up there by hook or crook. Ergo, there is a whole universe out there just begging for recognition.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
[reality is] not made up in our minds but is separate from us.


We agree that there must be an objective independent reality that informs experiment,... that says "no" to arbitrary experimentations.

When I say that 'phenomenal reality' is mind dependent, I only mean as a component, and am not saying that it is 'entirely made up in the mind'.

The failure of realism in the Bell Theorem implies that it is not possible for the purpose of experimentation and analysis of results, to "assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured". And given the wave/particle duality and conjugate descriptions generally, the experimental apparatus seems to create the attributes,... provides the conceptual form for an otherwise conceptually formless "underlying reality".

An analogy would be 'energy' which is not observable unless we supply some form in which to observe it, as a condition of observability.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2018
The notion that reality is made up in our minds is Idealism,..., which I have not advocated. Nor of course does Hawking
No... hawking has made it clear that he thinks -isms are a waste of time.

And the others I cited have made it clear that physicists do not waste their time with them.

You know if you do a search you find that university philo depts are closing around the globe.

"In March administrators at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas announced that, because of budget cuts, the entire department of philosophy would be eliminated."

-etc. How's your CV looking nou? Any coding or lab experience on there?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
Hmmmm, @Noum, Bell's Theorem doesn't necessarily imply that realism is wrong. It actually implies that either realism or locality is wrong; but you can't conclude from that that realism is wrong. And neither wave nor particle is equivalent to either realism or locality.

But I have to stop here and point out that it is inconsistent to insist upon objective independent reality that informs experiment, yet claim that such a reality is somehow formless, inconceivable, or purely philosophical.

Hawking likes to say outrageous stuff and then watch to see how people take it. I don't think enough people understand that viewpoint well enough to make folks laugh when he does it. They tend to quote it and treat it as the statements of some sort of oracle. I imagine he finds that pretty amusing.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
And as far as predicting buses and Nobel prizes, they don't seem all that predictable to me. If they were people wouldn't get run over by buses, nor would scientific discoveries promote revolutions in thought.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2018
One more thing to keep in mind: it seems that the reality of galaxies, planets, stars, and interstellar gas, not to mention the intergalactic medium and galaxy clusters, operates in an entirely classical manner. Quantum physics conundrums don't seem to affect any of this.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
Bell's Theorem doesn't necessarily imply that realism is wrong.

No, but if we formulate a theory that is to operate through space-time then it must be relativistic, ... i.e. QFT is relativistic, so this implies that realism is false in that theory (the most accurate ever conceived).

It actually implies that either realism or locality is wrong;

The Bell theorem is about assumptions made, more so than trying to uncover the true nature of "the actual physics". This is patently clear given that there is a epistemological choice to be made. Imo it is that all components of local-realism is "wrong" in the sense that they only apply contextually wrt apparatus and presumptions made.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018

And neither wave nor particle is equivalent to either realism or locality.


I used that as an additional example and didn't link the two.

...it is inconsistent to insist upon objective independent reality that informs experiment, yet claim that such a reality is somehow formless, inconceivable, or purely philosophical.


We disagree on this point. In fact I don't find that to be in anyway esoteric. It just follows from the meaning of 'phenomenal reality', observability, and a positivistic interpretation of QM.

Hawking likes to say outrageous stuff

Very true, especially wrt AI. He is not a source for my thoughts on QM. He is just popular and a positivist, so I use his quote.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
it seems that the reality of galaxies, planets, stars, and interstellar gas, not to mention the intergalactic medium and galaxy clusters, operates in an entirely classical manner. Quantum physics conundrums don't seem to affect any of this.


We both agreed above that classicality is emergent from quantum reality and that our minds evolved to operate on macroscopic reality.

When I confirmed that there is an objective 'underlying reality', albeit conceptually formless, I mean only that I am willing to have faith that it is consistent, singularly self contained, and without any seams between scales.

We will have to respectively disagree on the above points.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 20, 2018
...if we formulate a theory that is to operate through space-time then it must be relativistic, ... i.e. QFT is relativistic, so this implies that realism is false in that theory (the most accurate ever conceived).
I don't think it's necessary for every possible effect to be local in order to satisfy SRT. And a number of researchers and theorists seem to agree with me since they are describing the outcomes of their experiments as non-local. A couple of quick searches on this site will yield quite a few claims of it; I'm sure you can figure out what terms to use but if necessary I'll go hunt them up.

The Bell theorem is about assumptions made, more so than trying to uncover the true nature of "the actual physics".
Bell's Theorem is about local realism, and shows that it cannot be correct. Either locality is violated, or realism is violated. It doesn't say which one.
[contd]
Da Schneib
not rated yet Feb 20, 2018
[contd]
In fact, it doesn't say there can't be two different theories, mathematically equivalent, one of which violates realism, and one locality. What's excluded is a single theory that maintains both.

If you want my opinion, it's that there are two different formulations of QM, one non-local and one non-realistic. And that although this seems impossible using classical logic it makes perfect sense using quantum logic. We will have to see through this conundrum before we will understand quantum logic.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
The Bell theorem is about assumptions made, more so than trying to uncover the true nature of "the actual physics".

Bell's Theorem is about local realism, and shows that it cannot be correct. Either locality is violated, or realism is violated. It doesn't say which one.


It makes the assumption of local realism first (expressed in the inequalities),... and then shows that there is no local hidden variable theory possible that can reproduce the results of QM correlations,... because the inequalities are wrong. The starting premise (or assumption) is that of local hidden variables, as well as realism of attributes. Since the correlation inequalities are refuted, then at least one of the assumptions are false,... either locality, realism, or free choice of experimentation.

Precisely because it does not say which one, as you correctly point out, it becomes a choice between them.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
it doesn't say there can't be two different theories, mathematically equivalent, one of which violates realism, and one locality.

Yes, that is true. The point of Bohm's development of DeBroglie's theory as a pilot-wave, was to show that it IS possible to have a non-local realistic theory. This really supports my contention that it is a choice of conceptual form and interpretation of experimental apparatus,… precisely because the choice is not imposed upon experiment objectively, but rather contextually.

If you want my opinion, it's that there are two different formulations of QM, one non-local and one non-realistic. And that although this seems impossible using classical logic it makes perfect sense using quantum logic.

I think that is right, and would argue that the reason why is in the attempt, necessary on account of the way we are constituted, of conforming the underlying reality to our concepts of realism and locality.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2018
I don't think it's necessary for every possible effect to be local in order to satisfy SRT. And a number of researchers and theorists seem to agree with me since they are describing the outcomes of their experiments as non-local

Experiments depend upon assumptions made, so in those experiments they may be assuming realism as a condition of the design of the apparatus. Entanglement may be an example,…. We have two "particles" that interact and then separate...

In my understanding (still learning) , QFT as a theoretical description imposes the condition of locality in order to be relativistic because it deals with Lagrangians integrated through space-time. There may be theories that go beyond the standard model that are non-local, but I don't know anything about that.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2018
"The report that Middlesex University plans to end undergraduate teaching of philosophy may not seem especially newsworthy. Philosophy is often under threat, particularly in the new universities..."

"The Louisiana Board of Regents cut the philosophy major at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, for instance, and colleges in Idaho, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin..."

A philo tries to explain why this is a mistake...

"Philosophy has prompted confusion and anger ever since Socrates, one of the first practitioners of the discipline, was sentenced to death in 399 B.C.E. for "corrupting the youth." Puzzlement over why people study philosophy has only grown since Socrates' era."

-Yeah, and...?

"Yet people think of philosophy as a luxury only if they don't really understand what philosophy departments do. I teach one of the core areas of philosophy, epistemology..."

-Ah, here we go.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2018
"People from all walks of life—physicists, physicians, detectives, politicians—can only come to good conclusions on the basis of thoroughly examining the appropriate evidence..."

-But dear sir, those people never EVER use the term epistemology in describing what theyre doing.

This dolt highlights the very reason why philo depts are being closed everywhere. He's arguing that people who have never taken these courses and discussed 'the nature of knowledge' can't do their work.

As Tyson says "My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it's, 'What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?'"

-which has NOTHING to do with learning to recognize and use evidence.

This guys argument is the very reason these depts are being closed. He is UNLV philo dept chair Todd Edwin Jones, writing in the Boston Review... soon to be unemployed.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2018
This site has been so numbed by all the pseudobabble that now's the time to move in the closer:
This dolt highlights the very reason why philo depts are being closed everywhere. He's arguing that people who have never taken these courses and discussed 'the nature of knowledge' can't do their work.
Right. Just shut up and dribble.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2018

{This} reminds me of Otto, ..... occasionally I here some barking, but not much else.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2018
The Ignore feature makes this thread a lot shorter and more relevant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2018
The Ignore feature makes this thread a lot shorter and more relevant.
Well nobodys going to change your faith. Your detractors post to educate others, which needs to be done. Doesnt matter if you respond or not.

As to philos having some superior insight into evidence... they apparently fail to appreciate the implications of the evidence that scientists ignore them, and that philo depts are closing nationwide.

More evidence that they are, and always have been, a sham. The more science learns, the more obvious this becomes.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2018
philos...are, and always have been, a sham.
Did I get your point right? Typical critical thinkers - a threat to society - right?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
.reminds me of Otto, ..... occasionally I here some barking, but not much else.
Betrayed by the spell checker? - or are you using dictation software? - looks good but no critical thinking capabilities.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
The Ignore feature makes this thread a lot shorter and more relevant.
Ignorance is bliss, mother used to say. Anyway, why stir up the zombies? Just let them dribble and do their work.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2018
occasionally I [hear] some barking, but not much else.


The AutoText-Completion giveth and the AutoText-Completion taketh away.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2018
Did I get your point right? Typical critical thinkers - a threat to society - right?
So - they're critical thinkers because they incessantly tell you so? And you believe them?

The scientists I cited say philo 'critical thinking' is worthless. And we know scientists are the real critical thinkers because they get results. And they certainly did not learn to think from philos.

So who are YOU going to believe - philos desperately trying to justify their existence (and getting locked out of universities around the world) or scientists who say they have no use for them?

Waste, pretense, deception are certainly threats to society. They are a drag on progress. They perpetuate ignorance. They squander time and money.

Who needs them?

Put them in the rear of the dept of performing arts and let them teach tragicomedy.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2018
....scientists are the real critical thinkers because they get results.
They sure do. Like Chernobyl? The Challenger disaster? Like when training accidents kill 3 times as many combatants as actual combat? On time and on budget - the loyal zombies - that's what they're promoted for. Engineers texting or napping in the cockpit. Critical thinkers just stir up trouble. Critical thinking begins with learning cause and effect whether you're a scientist or whatever.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 22, 2018
OBTW - A fool and his money are soon parted, I understand. Get rid of those critical thinkers and the zombies will be easy prey.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2018
Chernobyl? The Challenger disaster? Like when training accidents kill 3 times as many combatants as actual combat? On time and on budget - the loyal zombies - that's what they're promoted for. Engineers texting or napping in the cockpit. Critical thinkers just stir up trouble. Critical thinking begins with learning cause and effect whether you're a scientist or whatever
Sorry I'm missing your point. Are you saying we are better off living in caves watching the shadows dance, gazing at our navels through rose colored glasses, wearing tweed jackets, fiddling with ourselves, and pondering the the meaning of meaning???

Do you think philos could build better nukes?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2018
You're humping strawmen, Otto. No one is claiming that traditional philosophy does science, or that science can be replaced by philosophy.

Beside the point, you seem to think that 'a philosopher' is somehow precluded from acquiring a knowledge of physics, ...perhaps on account of his DNA? I'll name one philosopher, of many, who's knowledge of physics exceeds that of many physicists ,... Roberto Torretti. Many physicists are also philosophers.

You seem to be under the impression that Noumenon is 'a philosopher',.... despite any objective means of determining that. IOW, you make things up for the sake of trolling (willingly lie).

You perpetually ignore the fact that the bulk of what I post can and has been referenced to prominent physicists.

If a physicist is not interested in what theoretical description means, then he is not a physicist but rather a mathematician.... hence the entire of 'philosophy of physics', of which physicists pursue.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2018
You're not objective minded since facts do not effect you at all...

The genesis of The Bell Theorem, perhaps the 'most profound result in all of science', was printed in a philosophy of physics publication, of which many now prominent physicist contributed,... thus 'philosophy of physics' subsequently impacted science.

This is a fact of history. Here is another historical fact. The Bell Theorem brought what was previously a philosophical debate, amongst physicists (i.e. like Bohr and Einstein) to the arbitration of experimental fact.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2018
When I reference prominent physicists, like Penrose and Wigner, who write on philosophical issues and think they're relevant , you call them "mystics",.... a master of GR, and a master of QFT, "mystics" !

You have zero objectivity nor are moved by facts of history.

Again, logically I only have to reference a few prominent physicists and a few facts of history to refute your entire premise, which I have done. But not again, as facts don't matter to you, nor do you even require as a prerequisite an independent knowledge of the subject.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2018
You're humping strawmen, Otto. No one is claiming that traditional philosophy does science, or that science can be replaced by philosophy
Turn me off deadman.
You perpetually ignore the fact that the bulk of what I post can and has been referenced to prominent physicists
Dead physicists. As opposed to the live ones I post. A lot has changed in the last 60 years, no? Like all those old philo depts that are now occupied by STEM faculty.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2018
I'll name one philosopher, of many, who's knowledge of physics exceeds that of many physicists ,... Roberto Torretti
-According to who? Other philos?

He doesnt even have a physics degree.

Academic Awards:
Premio Nacional de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales awarded by the Republic of Chile, 2011
Doctor honoris causa, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 2005
Fellow, Pittsburgh Center for the Philosophy of Science, 1983-1984
John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellow, 1980-1981
John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellow, 1975-1976
Alexander-von-Humboldt Dozentenstipendiat, Kant-Archiv, Bonn, 1964-1965
Learned Societies
Institut International de Philosophie
Académie Internationale de Philosophie des Sciences
British Society for the Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Science Association

-Nope no actual science awards/memberships. Not even American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Another example of self-manipulation of the most lascivious sort.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2018
You're humping strawmen, Otto. No one is claiming that traditional philosophy does science, or that science can be replaced by philosophy
Then I have to ask, what is it you think you're doing?
If a physicist is not interested in what theoretical description means, then he is not a physicist
No, they're not interested in what YOU'RE theorizing, according to the refs from today's scientists and even philos I posted. And also all those 'out of business' signs on office doors.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2018
genesis of The Bell Theorem, perhaps the 'most profound result in all of science', was printed in a philosophy of physics publication, of which many now prominent physicist contributed
And dont you think they would have published in one of the peer-reviewed science journals of the time if they had been allowed to do so?

What is it you don't understand about 'no other choice?'
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
The question as to why it was not published in science journals of the time,… is the very point which refutes your contention that 'philosophy of physics has not impacted physics'….

Epistemological Letters "was created because mainstream academic journals were reluctant to publish articles about the PHILOSOPHY of quantum mechanics",…

…which is exactly what Bell's early writings on the subject were,… i.e. trying to ascertain the meaning underlying QM. His ideas would subsequently develop in a way that could be subject to empirical investigation,… thus "philosophy of physics" subsequently impacted science.

According to John F. Clauser, "much of the early work on Bell's theorem was published only in Epistemological Letters."

As I said, facts don't matter to you.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
I'm not sure how you think actual physics is done, whether you think fully formed theories fall ready made from physicists asses or not, but that is a naïve view. It starts by an attempt to extract meaning from experiment, in the attempt at formulating theoretical description. This can only happen if one questions a-priori epistemological presumptions. This is what the Copenhagen group of physicists did, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac etc,... and is why Schrodinger (& Einstein) failed in their attempt to reconcile QM with a-priori intuitive classicality.

"This postulate, pertaining to epistemology, proves to be of fundamental importance....[...]...The special relativity theory resulted in appreciable advances. It reconciled mechanics and electrodynamics. It reduced the number of logically independent hypotheses regarding the latter. It enforced the need for a clarification of the fundamental concepts in epistemological terms. " - Einstein, from Noble Prize lecture

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2018
The question as to why it was not published in science journals of the time,… is the very point which refutes your contention that 'philosophy of physics has not impacted physics'….
I don't know how many times I have to repost this

"the newsletter was created because mainstream academic journals were reluctant to publish articles about the philosophy of quantum mechanics, especially anything that implied support for issues such as action at a distance."

"Clauser writes that any inquiry into the "wonders and peculiarities" of quantum mechanics and quantum entanglement that went outside the "party line" was prohibited, in what he argues amounted to an "evangelical crusade."[4] Samuel Goudsmit (1902–1978), editor of the prestigious Physical Review, imposed a formal ban on the philosophical debate; he issued instructions to referees that they should feel free to reject material that even hinted at it."

READ it this time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2018
I'm not sure how you think actual physics is done, whether you think fully formed theories fall ready made from physicists asses or not, but that is a naïve view
You're talking to Neil degrasse Tyson, an actual scientist, not me.

"And to the scientist it's, 'What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?'" His overall message was clear: science moves on; philosophy stays mired, useless and effectively dead."

-What an ass you are. Sadly your little hobby is full of assholes like yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2018
…which is exactly what Bell's early writings on the subject were,… i.e. trying to ascertain the meaning underlying QM. His ideas would subsequently develop in a way that could be subject to empirical investigation
So You're saying that bells first paper is philosophy and not science, and so he preferred publishing it in a mimeographed hippie rag?

Do you have a reference confirming this from a contemporary scientist?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
Are you dense or just pretending to be?

I'm the one who pointed out in my original posts on this that it could not be published in science journals, precisely because it was philosophy of physics,... because this fact supports me and not you !

1) "mainstream academic journals were reluctant to publish articles about the PHILOSOPHY of quantum mechanics",..... thus establishing that it was philosophy, and...

2) given that "much of the early work on Bell's theorem was published only in Epistemological Letters.",.... this means...

3) that philosophy of physics subsequently impacted science.

You're back on ignore for deliberately being a dolt.

You're saying that bells first paper is philosophy and not science, and so he preferred publishing it in [Epistemological Letters]


False. My very first set of posts on this, pointed out that it COULD NOT be published in mainstream science journals,.... because it was PHILOSOPHY of physics.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
IOW, in order for me to established that 'philosophy impacted science' , I first have to established that the given example was considered philosophy. Since it was not published in mainstream science journals precisely on that account, this is established. The next step was to show that it was the genesis of the Bell Theorem, that is, "much of the early work on Bell's theorem was published only in Epistemological Letters",... and then the final resounding step was to show that this theorem is perhaps "the most profound in all of science", and subsequently resulted in dozens of profound quantum experiments.

Ignore turned on.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
it could not be published in science journals, precisely because it was philosophy of physics
According to who - Bell? Youre saying Bell the scientist sought out a philo publication because in his mind he was writing philosophy and not science?

Or is it you and your buds who are taking the opportunity to mischaracterize science because they are desperate to save their failed sci/philo experiment from extinction?
I first have to established that the given example was considered philosophy
No you have to determine what the scientist who wrote it considered it.
this theorem is perhaps "the most profound in all of science"
-Sounds like even you consider it science.
Ignore turned on.
Coward. We''ll just repeat that you think YOU know how science is done better than neil degrasse tyson.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
in the attempt at formulating theoretical description. This can only happen if one questions a-priori epistemological presumptions
Perhaps in some way this is true. But according to my refs it doesnt involve any formal 'philosophy of physics'. They dont use terms like epistemology or a priori in their papers. They dont include physphilos on their teams. They dont reference physphilo papers, submit their papers to physphilos for review, or seek to publish them in physphilo journals.

They dont even acknowledge you guys at all, except when morons like Albert annoy real scientists like Krauss. And in that particlar case even fellow physphilos criticized him, fearing the exposure of their artifice no doubt.

You can go on pretending that real science like bells early work is philosophy, but Im sure that he and other scientists then and now regard it as science and science only.

And the mainstream who rejected it in the beginning ultimately reached this conclusion as well.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
Well before you thought you implied that it WAS meaningless philosophy…

And what is this term 'beable'?

"So a beable is just Bell's notion of a hidden variable. It is not an observable, but somehow represents someone's opinion about what ought to be real... they want to pretend to have values for that, and call them beables or hidden variable or reality or whatever sounds good... Likewise, defining beables as the hypothetical result of unperformed measurements is usually not helpful either..."


But, unbeknownst to you, this quote simply expresses that the Bell Theorem worked in refuting a realist epistemology, …. That was assumed by none other than Einstein, amongst others.

....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
As I pointed out above, the Bell Theorem's purpose was to settle a philosophical debate concerning the completeness or otherwise of QM. It was argued, by Einstein's EPR paper, that QM was incomplete, in the sense that there was postulated to be missing information (of underlying reality) that had we known it, QM would not violate 'Einstein realism', meaning 'local realism'.

Therefore, Bell deliberately made the assumption of 'local realism' (defined above somewhere), by formulating mathematical inequalities that represented quantum experimental correlations with a hypothetical hidden variable function, which is to say, to represent any possible extended theory of QM (pretending the missing data was found). These inequalities were violated, thus demonstrating that there is no possible local hidden variable theory that could possibly reproduce the experimental results of QM, with the assumption that attributes have an independent existence.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
Bell published his early work on this problem in a philosophy of physics journal, just as Einstein's philosophical debates concerning the nature of QM preceded his EPR paper,.... thus philosophical and epistemological problems in extracting meaning from theoretical description, motivates and impacts subsequent physics.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
As I pointed out above, the Bell Theorem's purpose was to settle a philosophical debate concerning the completeness or otherwise of QM
Philosophical according to whom? Philos or scientists? How is this paper regarded by scientists today? Science or philosophy?

The paper's online. Sure looks like a scientific paper to me. Lots of equations, refs to experiments and fellow scientists. Only a single nod to despagnet the long-term demiphilo.

The words epistemological nor a priori nor any philo terms occur anywhere in the text, which you would expect if it was written for philos and not scientists.

Again, how is it regarded today by scientists? As science or no?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
philosophical and epistemological problems in extracting meaning from theoretical description, motivates and impacts subsequent physics
- According to philos, not physicists. AGAIN, if physicists used anything from physphilos in their experiments they would be obligated to reference them. Not deride them like all my sources above.

SAYING they have influence in today's science does not make it true. And according to the scientists and philos I ref'ed, its not.

"despagnet the long-DEAD demiphilo."
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
Here's despagnet denying QM
https://youtu.be/TWLOuApyy74

-Winner of the xian Templeton prize I might add. His declarations that humans are inadequate to observe the universe is the same one rand found so odious about kant. It's a religious notion, not a scientific one.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2018
He's not denying QM, his entire career is of QM,... lol, as usual you don't know what you're talking about. Nor is he saying that we can't observe the universe,.... only that we are not omnipotent and therefore there are limits in doing so, so that .....

Instead of guessing, why not read one of his books?

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
rand found so odious about kant. It's a religious notion, not a scientific one.


-In fact, it is a necessary conclusion from Kant's epistemology, that metaphysics (i.e. Religious beliefs), can not be a source of knowledge.

-In fact d'Espagnat did not agree with Kant's core philosophical argument,... but draws very similar conclusions purely from quantum physics arguments. He has written extensively on this; for example see "On Physics and Philosophy".

-In fact, the notion that our intellectual facilities are omnipotent such that it synthesize the entirety of Reality,.... is what is religious and which is what d'Espagnat and Kant argues against.

You don't even know what you're arguing against. This is what happens when you toss random junk against the wall, rather than engaging in substantive discussion.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
Winner of the xian Templeton prize


Maybe he should have turned down the million dollar prize?

He received the prize, not because he made a religiously motivated argument (he's been writing on the conceptual foundation of QM and influenced John Bell himself), but because his physics interpretation exposes that quantum mechanics is a 'theory of experience', and not one of 'independent reality'.

For the Templeton prize people's motivation, this effectively refutes the naïve notion that our minds are effectively omnipotent,..... leaving room for their faith and refuting that science can prove their metaphysics wrong. Kant had already done this,... but now QM allows a purely physics interpretation possible.

Myself, I am an agnostic for this reason,... I don't believe in god nor any religion, nor any metaphysics. In fact argue against metaphysics in science.

But you don't need to know any of this to continue trolling.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
According to philos, not physicists.


Wrong. According to physicists themselves. I have not referenced any philosophers that are not physicists. You simply refuse to or are incapable of following the argument.

AGAIN, if physicists used anything from physphilos in their experiments they would be obligated to reference them.


This is where your lack of knowledge of physics itself and it's history is exposed. You don't even realize how profoundly wrong you are here. The {Philosophy of Physics} permeates all of theoretical physics, in terms of the various empirically indistinguishable interpretations and unresolved conceptual problems.

There are dozens of well known QM experiments motivated by and that reference the Bell Theorem, the purpose of which is to confirm the failure of a component of local-realism.

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
He received the prize, not because he made a religiously motivated argument (he's been writing on the conceptual foundation of QM and influenced John Bell himself), but
because the people who gave him the prize agreed with him that man is too paltry and corrupt to fully appreciate the grandeur of gods creation.

Just like kant. Which is precisely why rand despised him.
The {Philosophy of Physics} permeates all of theoretical physics
According to you. According to the LIVE scientists I referenced, its a sham.

A philo claiming that his credo is the root of everything is decidedly religionist don't you think?
Maybe he should have turned down the million dollar prize?
How else are they going to earn a living without handouts?

Maybe they should try inventing something useful. Earning an honest living. Getting physics degrees.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
-In fact, it is a necessary conclusion from Kant's epistemology, that metaphysics (i.e. Religious beliefs), can not be a source of knowledge
-Because, in fact, it doesn't exist. It's one of those idiot riddles that real scientists find so repulsive.

The source of religion is entirely physical and therefore explainable scientifically. Because there is nothing in this universe that is NOT entirely physical.

And no, kant didn't channel Heisenberg. People didn't know about it until scientists discovered it. Kant wrote riddles just like nostradamus. And behold! A despot named Hister or hitler or somesuch actually did emerge in the 20th century!

Sometimes seers get lucky, and guys like you assume metaphysical machinations.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
...because the people who gave him the prize agreed with him that man is too paltry and corrupt to fully appreciate the grandeur of gods creation.
So basically the problem is that the philos are all atheists. Right? My philo prof was ex-dean of the Union Theological Seminary. Must have fallen from grace somewhere along the line.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2018
cont
make that Dean Emeritus
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
My philo prof was ex-dean of the Union Theological Seminary. Must have fallen from grace somewhere along the line
Out of the frying pan and onto the griddle. Either way he's gonna burn.

Up until the enlightenment, philosophy was all religious. The philosophy afterward was an attempt to replace god and heaven with something intellectually equivalent, while maintaining its propaganda value.

Hence metaphysical for heaven, consciousness for soul, immanence for transcendence, kant the prophet, etc.

Anything hinting at the chance for immortality and divine revelation.

Interestingly, the antireligionist philo Dan Dennett actually started an anonymous support group for priests and preachers who had lost their faith, not unlike AA. Apparently it's very popular.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
Nou says
metaphysics (i.e. Religious beliefs), can not be a source of knowledge
-as if it's a thing. But then he says
I don't believe in god nor any religion, nor any metaphysics
-as if it's not a thing. Is it a thing or an unthing? And if it's an unthing, why keep using it? I know, because it's valuable in demonstrating your philoness.
I have not referenced any philosophers that are not physicists
Yeah You did.
I'll name one philosopher, of many, who's knowledge of physics exceeds that of many physicists ,... Roberto Torretti
-Not even close.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
...Either way he's gonna burn.
Fire insurance religion. Here. Have some kool-aid. Now you can come back from the dead and haunt all those evil non-believers! At least on their websites!
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
He's not denying QM, his entire career is of QM,... lol, as usual you don't know what you're talking about
He SAID that QM can't explain everything with no evidence that it can't. This is how mystics and religionists conjecture.

@Seeker I'll give you a few 5/5s when I get on a computer. Let it not be said that otto is unmerciful.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
Here's despagnet denying QM [...]His declarations that humans are inadequate to observe the universe

He's not denying QM, his entire career is of QM,... [...] Nor is he saying that we can't observe the universe,.... only that we are not omnipotent and therefore there are limits in doing so

He SAID that QM can't explain everything with no evidence that it can't.


It can't. GTR and QFT are at present incompatible, as THE open problem in physics at present,.., nor can QM explain why you experience "redness" and pain, nor why a dog barks.

He is not "denying QM" as you said. The notion that we are omnipotent such that our observability and synthesis is in one-to-one correspondence with independent-reality,.... IS RELIGIOUS'esque METAPHYSICS !
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
IOW, without having studied Kant nor d'Espagnat, you continue to fail to understand that the point is NOT in a positive confirmation of a metaphysical reality existing as independent reality,.... but rather as in a delimiting epistemology,.... which d'Espagnat basis on the facts established by QM.

Just as my screen-name is meant as a delimiting concept.

You continue to claim that philosophers have no business doing physics, but yet here YOU are feigning understanding when you have done nothing to gain such understanding.

Read his book or Kant's, or stop your confrontation style of trolling and at least attempt to understand the above posts. That you haven't asked me one question, exposes your corrupt intent here.

Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2018
Of course it IS theoretically possible to offer counter arguments to both my use of Kant and my agreements with d'Espagnat,..... but you have not done so, as you have not engaged in any substance here,.... only repeating your metaphilosophy and religious omnipotent epistemology.

What do they say, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer",... you can't defeat them by reason unless you understand them.

Your claim that there isn't anything there to understand is simply childish ignorance, and unsupported by prominent physicists, Einstein (Kant) who have read them.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2018
@Seeker I'll give you a few 5/5s when I get on a computer. Let it not be said that otto is unmerciful.
Waiting eagerly. Thank you sooo much, O Merciful One!
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2018
Or not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2018
Read his book or Kant's, or stop your confrontation style of trolling
I rely on the opinions of people far more capable than you or me who HAVE read that crap and have declared it as such.

And repeating those opinions here is certainly not trolling.
The notion that we are omnipotent such that our observability and synthesis is in one-to-one correspondence with independent-blah blah snortingfarting
-THIS is trolling. And why would I want to get sucked into this sort of song and dance? Tyson et al have declared it worthless and thats good enough for me.

A scientist writes an obviously scientific paper obviously meant for other scientists to read, and a philo declares it philosophy just because the only place that that scientist could get it published, was in some philo rag.

That's how desperate you all are for relevance.

Thank god you're the only people who take this drivel seriously.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2018
IS RELIGIOUS'esque METAPHYSICS !
-So it's a thing then, or not... ? I'm confused.

Is it like the riddles about nonexistent crap that philos pull out their asses in order to try to rope unsuspecting innocents into unending, unresolvable discussions which give them the opportunity to display their superior word-juggling skills for nonexistent audiences?

Is it like that sir?

I think yes. Yes indeed.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2018
I rely on the opinions ...
So noted. You swallowed the kool-aid. When the blind lead the blind...
..of people far more capable than you or me...
Not being able to think for yourself, how would you know? Someone told you?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2018
Otto, has never read Kant, nor has displayed a knowledge of GR/QM, yet somehow he thinks he is qualified to assess my knowledge,.... all the while maintaining a thesis that philosophers have no business having physics discussions, ironically.

Otto, was told before that it is not possible to hold a discussion when one party is via proxy that has not themselves even read my posts, and in any case, is way out of context. In fact there is no context because Otto doesn't even supply one that is relevant to my posts.

Otto, is incapable of admitting defeat. Bell's early writings were on philosophy of QM, published in Epistemological Letters because it was considered philosophy of physics, and subsequently impacted science even to the extent of being, in at least one physicists opinion, the most profound in all of science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
Not being able to think for yourself, how would you know? Someone told you?
And when was the last time you said this to a scientist, whose job relies on the work of gens of forebears whose results he does not feel obligated to reproduce and confirm?

Who's the one not thinking here?

We have confidence in the work of experts. If we didn't there would BE no progress.
Otto, has never read Kant, nor has displayed a knowledge of GR/QM, yet somehow he thinks he is qualified to assess my knowledge
I read it and said WTF??? Rand read kant and declared it garbage. Tyson/feynman/krauss et al read it and declared it worthless.

Good enough for me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
Bell's early writings were on philosophy of QM
HE didn't consider it philosophy. He wrote it as science. In short order mainstream scientists accepted it as the science it was, and as it was always intended to be.

Only obsolete physphilos continue to stamp their feet and insist it was philosophy, and nobody really gives a shit.

Who's the pathetic loser here?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
and subsequently impacted science even to the extent of being, in at least one physicists opinion, the most profound in all of science
Because it WAS SCIENCE you moron.

At PPPL there is an applied physics group, the experimentalists, and there is a theoretical physics group. The theory group is not an extension of princetons philo cabal. They're scientists doing science, not philosophy.

And I imagine if you asked them do they ever consult with the philos on main campus, they would give you the same answer that Tyson and krauss did.

Why would they ever bother?

Here they are.
https://theory.pp...ch-staff

-Not one philo in the bunch. Wonder why?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
Tyson on philocrap

"Tyson: And so the scientist knows when the question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" is a pointless delay in our progress...

"Tyson: How do you define "clapping"? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I'd rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that, don't derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says, "Look, I got all this world of unknown out there. I'm moving on. I'm leaving you behind. You can't even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you've asked yourself. I don't have the time for that."
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
"Interviewer: I also felt that it was a fat load of crap, as one could define what "crap" is and the essential qualities that make up crap: how you grade a philosophy paper?

Tyson: [Laughs.] Of course, I think we all agree you turned out OK.

Interviewer: Philosophy was a good major for comedy, I think, because it does get you to ask a lot of ridiculous questions about things.

Tyson: No, you need people to laugh at your ridiculous questions.

Interviewer: It's a bottomless pit. It just becomes nihilism.

Tyson: Nihilism is a kind of philosophy."

-hahaha funny stuff yes?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
Bell's early writings were on philosophy of QM

HE didn't consider it philosophy. He wrote it as science.


You're just "proclaiming" that as if it's true. You're the guy who thought "ensemble" was a philosophy term, therefore you're mere opinion, as opposed to historical fact, is worthless. That FACTS are that his early writings, not the fully former Bell Theorem, were published in a philosophy of physics circulation because the stated reason is that it was philosophy of physics.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
Otto, has never read Kant, nor has displayed a knowledge of GR/QM, yet somehow he thinks he is qualified to assess my knowledge

I read it and said WTF???


It's not an easy read. There are prerequisites. Logically, because YOU didn't understand it, doesn't mean it is gibberish. I doubt you even tried, past the first few pages.

feynman/krauss et al read it and declared it worthless.

Do you have sources indicating that either one of these physicists read and understood Kant, or is this another one of your made up "facts"? Discovery channel boy Krauss, never struck me as an intellectual of any sort.

There ARE plenty of physicists who have read Kant, and may agree and disagree on various aspects of his writings, for example Einstein,..., so you mentioning a few guys that didn't like traditional philosophy, has zero bearing on the fact that philosophy of physics is a subject contributed by physicists.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 28, 2018
Not being able to think for yourself, how would you know? Someone told you?
And when was the last time you said this to a scientist,...
Why should I? I don't think of scientists as zombies.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2018
EDIT: "You're just "proclaiming" that as if it's true. You're the guy who thought "ensemble" was a philosophy term, therefore [your] mere opinion, as opposed to historical fact, is worthless. [The] FACTS are that his early writings, not the fully [formed] Bell Theorem, were published in a philosophy of physics circulation because the stated reason is that it was philosophy of physics [and on that account wouldn't be published in a physics journal]"
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2018
{Philosophy Enters The Optics Laboratory} (written by a physicist)

"....what was considered good physics after Aspect's 1982 experiments was once considered by many a philosophical matter instead of a scientific one, and that the path from philosophy to physics required a change in the physics community's attitude about the status of the foundations of quantum mechanics."

The philosophical debate that motivated Bell's analysis, was one of epistemology in the sense that it was about theoretical hidden variables, the validity of conceptual presumptions, and the objections from the Copenhagen group was in rejection of invoking metaphysical elements in theory,... as the Bohm pilot wave theory did.

However, no amount of historical fact will change your mind, because your metaphilosophy has become your religion.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2018
There are literally hundreds of published works, written by physicists, that reference the "philosophical issues of QM",.... and these issues along with Realist or positivist philosophical points of view motivates theoretical physicists. This is a matter of historical fact, not debatable opinion.

Religious people don't change their minds when new facts are presented to them either.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 01, 2018
You're just "proclaiming" that as if it's true
Funny. Bell was never trained as a philo.

"When he was 11 years old, he decided to be a scientist, and at 16 graduated from Belfast Technical High School. Bell then attended the Queen's University of Belfast, and obtained a bachelor's degree in experimental physics in 1948, and one in mathematical physics a year later. He went on to complete a Ph.D. in physics at the University of Birmingham in 1956, specialising in nuclear physics and quantum field theory."

Which would explain the complete lack of philo terms in his be-ables paper.
that reference the "philosophical issues of QM
-most lyrical or derisive I would have to assume. At any rate, those scientists by and large wouldn't be expecting philos to resolve them, now would they? Or else they would be included in theory and experimentation.

Which they aren't.
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 01, 2018
However, no amount of historical fact will change your mind, because your metaphilosophy has become your religion
You keep forgetting I'm not the proxy of all the scientists I quoted. Try arguing with them directly. I think most of them have websites?
Discovery channel boy Krauss, never struck me as an intellectual of any sort
"Lawrence Krauss... an assistant professor at Yale University in 1985 and associate professor in 1988. He was named the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, professor of astronomy, and was chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University from 1993 to 2005... named co-president of the board of sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In 2010, he was elected to the board of directors of the Federation of American Scientists, and in June 2011, he joined the professoriate of the New College of the Humanities, a private college in London..."
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 01, 2018
"His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as "dark energy", as well as his many contributions to the attempt to understand the origin and nature of dark matter, and methods for its detection."

-Naw, he's just another one of those knuckle-dragging physicists. Probly can't speak a word of philo.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 01, 2018
"His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as "dark energy", as well as his many contributions to the attempt to understand the origin and nature of dark matter, and methods for its detection."
Interesting. Who is his? Where'd you pick this up?
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Mar 01, 2018
Well you could drop it into Google perhaps? But it says so in the preceding post.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Mar 02, 2018
I'm an EE, obviously my first question was, do we really understand charge qualities? Yeah, we can do numbers, we even have a great guess-timator, QM! But if charge exist then charge is all. Proof: Immortal, occupies no space, only the field exist, since a neutron or combo +&- charge as 1 center! QED

So once we measure then we theorize; not the other way around, both are mutually exclusive.

Charge is unique, i.e. Fields affect Fields at the centers, only! Everything else is science Fiction! GR is stupid beyond malfunctioning.

do we still ignore logic?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2018
Well you could drop it into Google perhaps?...
No luck. Must have been a ghost writer.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.