Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Plasmatic

Recommended Posts

Again, taking only this point to respond to: the request was to demonstrate how the science of mathematics violates LOI, not the math of QM. I get the impression that this point is not going to be addressed head-on here. It would be a formidable challenge, and, quite frankly, a futile undertaking, which would fit in with the fact that you continue to evade it here. Until you decide to address it specifically, you will just keep returning to this point.

Your request was simply misunderstood. So here are my thoughts on math as a science:

 

First, to say that it is a 'science' means that mathematical objects are real. This means 'objective' in the sense of mind-independent, and discovered within nature, hence 'natural'. They are likewise 'real' in the sense that Realism says that non-material objects are as real as material ones.

 

This, of course, contrasts to 'Nominalism' or 'Conceptualism'. In passing, both Realism and Naturalism mean that math-objects are not invented. In terms of reading real philosophy, this view is best expressed in two books by Penny Maddy: Realism/Naturalism in Math'. 

 

What she observes of mathematicians is exactly what they say of themselves: solutions to math problems are arrived at by hypothesizing alternative answers and testing them by the ways and means within math itself. This alternative-ness again means that A= one of many possible A's. In this sense, all sciences, without exception, deny the LoI with respect to hypotheses-formation

 

Two examples:

 

To find the Ho;y Grail of differential geometry--the Lie 8-- a team from Columbia /NYU constructed its own computer that would test the compatibility of what turned out to be a NYC phone book number of coefficients-- which could be interrelated in a permutation that ran into the billions. All interrelations would yield up different hypothetical models, but only one solution could be correct.

 

Two weeks later--bingo! What the team also found out was that the hypotheses-testing program was correct. Humans by themselves could not have tested all one billion of the hypotheses. Assuming that the left-hand A could be found to exist,  any posited right-side A had one-billionth chance to match as an 'identity'.

 

Then there's the story of Ms Mirzakhani drawing multiple diagrams of the Riemann Manifold with her daughters crayolas, looking for ways to describe it on a curved surface. On receiving Math's top prize, she thanked her daughter for being such a good sport because there were some days when mommy used up all of the paper!

 

Hypotheses, all.

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's start from the beginning. You wrote:

 

>This paper challenges the very derivation of the fundamental assumptions of QM.

 

The paper challenges the Kirchhoff Law and its derivation by Kirchhoff. Now, even if the derivation and/or the Kirchhoff Law itself were invalid, this would have no impact on the validity of QM. QM is based on completely different assumptions/premises.

 

If you disagree, please show me a mainstream textbook of Quantum Mechanics which develops the theory starting from the Kirchhoff Law. I have checked a dozen and found no mention of Kirchhoff's name, neither in the postulates or otherwise.

 

The above is valid independently of the content of the paper you are pointing to.

You need to reference'Thermodynamics' for direct citation of Kirchoff. Then read how Planck, working on a thermodynamic problem called 'Ultra Violet Catastrophe'. accidentally discovered quanta,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.

Harriman, who claims to possess a masters in philosophy, should know better than to endow the subject (left side) of a logical proposition with truth-value of real content. All logic says is that subject (L) equals predicate ®. 

 

In other words it's 'logical' that photons can't be in two places at once if and only if the subject is a statement that says, "given, objects can't be in two places at once."

 

By contract, the statement, 'Photons are always in two places at once' is equally amenable to logic. The identity of any particular photon means that  necessarily  it is to be found in two places at once. This is all that the LOI means.

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two examples:

 

My pet peeve has been the Collatz conjecture, and to a lesser extent, Fermat's Last Theorem, Both of these, as I see them, deal more directly with number theory. Alas, I shall have to wait until I fully consider it with full regard with respect to the final arbiter before I can begin to take either of these into consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to reference'Thermodynamics' for direct citation of Kirchoff. Then read how Planck, working on a thermodynamic problem called 'Ultra Violet Catastrophe'. accidentally discovered quanta,

Thanks, I know where to look for Kirchhoff law and Planck developments. My point was that whatever happens to those results, the validity of QM is not affected. This is because QM does not logically depend on those results, only historically.

 

I am saying this because Plasmatic started the topic by implying that Kirchhoff law and Planck's later developments are assumptions of QM, that is that they are QM's logical premises.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pet peeve has been the Collatz conjecture, and to a lesser extent, Fermat's Last Theorem, Both of these, as I see them, deal more directly with number theory. Alas, I shall have to wait until I fully consider it with full regard with respect to the final arbiter before I can begin to take either of these into consideration.

I believe that there's some autobiographic material available by Wyl as to how he solved Fermat. Again, a large trash basket, lots of paper, and pencils, not pens.

 

To a great extent, my argument for trying to delimit logic as a formal system rests upon behavioristic explanations: in certain instances and ways, a mental ordering becomes necessary, in others not.

 

At one crucial step in doing science, the mental conceptualization of hypotheses, we say, "Null!" Assuming all possible explanations possess internal consistency of the sort that would justify A=A, all mutually contradictory hypotheses have an equal chance of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

 

My apologies for not having responded to your last missive in “QM…” as the thread was closed on the day I had intended to write. So thanks for the virtual re-post.

No apologies necessary.

 

First, to dispel a misunderstanding, I never said that LoI was false, or that the scientific method wasn’t logical in terms of its own procedures. If I assign properties to one photon, I assign them to all photons.

All right.

 

For example, If all photons exhibit a time/space calculus which is probabilistic, then no photon’s calculation is definite (true in terms of content).

One of the challenges in discussing matters with me, as no doubt you're already aware, is that I don't know very much. (This is also one of the challenges of being me.) Thus, I have to discuss these sorts of things without committing to any particular position, re: photons, or etc., because I cannot make any claim about them with confidence.

So, with that in mind and very generally speaking, I'd say yes. Whatever it is that a photon is, we observe it to have certain properties -- and not others. We calculate or predict or model based upon our current understanding, and we must do so within very strict parameters... if we'd like to use those calculations for any good purpose. And this methodology -- treating photons like photons, according to what we've observed photons to be, and not like anything else -- reflects the very Law of Identity under discussion. If we were instead to treat photons as we do... grilled cheese sandwiches, we would not get very far, in trying to build transistors or quantum computers or whatever it is that we aim to do.

 

My issue, rather, is with certain Objectivists who confuse the formal properties of logic with their own common-sense evaluation of what is reasonably true. “It ain’t logical” really means “It makes no sense in terms of the received wisdom of Hee-Haw County, Middel Amerika.”

I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of particular people and would like to avoid it if possible... though if you have particular claims to examine, we certainly can examine those -- speaking to the ideas, themselves, insofar as whatever knowledge I do have allows me.

But is this problem that you cite really with "certain Objectivists"? Or is it with people generally?

In my experience, it is often difficult to challenge a person's "common-sense evaluations" of the world, and I think that the history of science, itself, has some prominent examples of reluctance on that score, sometimes even among scientists themselves. That being said, Objectivism recognizes the contextual nature of certainty, so in terms of philosophy, Objectivists ought to be prepared to reassess such common-sense evaluations when confronted with conflicting incoming information (or, as Rand put it, to "check their premises" in the face of contradiction).

The mileage of any given Objectivist, as of any person, will of course vary.

Lastly, I'd ask that we try not to characterize those who disagree with us as morons -- especially in the context of an ongoing discussion, where participants might be apt to take it as a personal attack. If we are both intelligent and well-meaning -- and I take it that we are -- then I am sure that we can manage to disagree and yet be civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I know where to look for Kirchhoff law and Planck developments. My point was that whatever happens to those results, the validity of QM is not affected. This is because QM does not logically depend on those results, only historically.

 

I am saying this because Plasmatic started the topic by implying that Kirchhoff law and Planck's later developments are assumptions of QM, that is that they are QM's logical premises.

Your welcome.

 

My point is that although all statements ultimately depend upon logic, the article confuses 'formal properties' with 'sensible utterances based upon received wisdom and commonly-held assumptions'. This is what i rather unkindly call 'The Hee-haw Error'-- ostensibly applied to Harriman.

 

In other words, 'logical premises do not exist. Rather, reasonably acceptable premises based upon received wisdom exists. For example, if unicorns hare horses with horns and Miss Snowball goes 'neigh', has four hooves, eats oats and has a horn, by formal logic she's a 'unicorn'....but not by assumptions based upon received wisdom.

 

So the logical issue is this: was Planck's use of black box consistent with that of its creator, Kirchoff? Well obviously, yes. 

 

The real issue raised by Stewart was whether or not those Germans should continue with the employ of a thought-experiment (gedanken) that has no empirical basis. Hence what real philosophy calls 'epistemology', or the ways in which truth is justified.

 

Here, the Objectivist mode seems to be that of the Logical Empiricism of Wittgenstein: "Die welt is alles was der fall ist...Wovon Mann night sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"...and all that. So yes, assessed by these standards, QM prior to its own accumulation of evidence was nonsense.

 

But now, clearly not because, to the extent that you accept the epistemological validity of empirical proof, QM is true. To this end, cutting edge math-based gedanken have moved into string theory, braine universes, etc...

 

So here, let's be clear and emphasize that no one using the Black Box concept ever suggested that it was real.  Conjuring up Imaginary objects as ideal types are just the way Germans like to do science, the Scots, not. Just ask Einstein what it would be like to ride on a photon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No apologies necessary.

 

All right.

 

One of the challenges in discussing matters with me, as no doubt you're already aware, is that I don't know very much. (This is also one of the challenges of being me.) Thus, I have to discuss these sorts of things without committing to any particular position, re: photons, or etc., because I cannot make any claim about them with confidence.

So, with that in mind and very generally speaking, I'd say yes. Whatever it is that a photon is, we observe it to have certain properties -- and not others. We calculate or predict or model based upon our current understanding, and we must do so within very strict parameters... if we'd like to use those calculations for any good purpose. And this methodology -- treating photons like photons, according to what we've observed photons to be, and not like anything else -- reflects the very Law of Identity under discussion. If we were instead to treat photons as we do... grilled cheese sandwiches, we would not get very far, in trying to build transistors or quantum computers or whatever it is that we aim to do.

 

I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of particular people and would like to avoid it if possible... though if you have particular claims to examine, we certainly can examine those -- speaking to the ideas, themselves, insofar as whatever knowledge I do have allows me.

But is this problem that you cite really with "certain Objectivists"? Or is it with people generally?

In my experience, it is often difficult to challenge a person's "common-sense evaluations" of the world, and I think that the history of science, itself, has some prominent examples of reluctance on that score, sometimes even among scientists themselves. That being said, Objectivism recognizes the contextual nature of certainty, so in terms of philosophy, Objectivists ought to be prepared to reassess such common-sense evaluations when confronted with conflicting incoming information (or, as Rand put it, to "check their premises" in the face of contradiction).

The mileage of any given Objectivist, as of any person, will of course vary.

Lastly, I'd ask that we try not to characterize those who disagree with us as morons -- especially in the context of an ongoing discussion, where participants might be apt to take it as a personal attack. If we are both intelligent and well-meaning -- and I take it that we are -- then I am sure that we can manage to disagree and yet be civil.

Don,

 

No one is a 'moron' because the term refers to innate capacities. Rather hee-haw-ness refers to a lack of effort  that one has a right to demand of others. in other words, I 'm so hard on Harriman because he knows better.

 

Now here's my personal story, which might give an idea of where I'm coming from:

 

My bestie is a Greco-Hungarian chick named Eva (Ayyy-va). Although i'm in Salamanca and she's at Emory (Atlanta), we manage to talk at least four hours per week--so yes, i miss her.

 

We met as pre-teen, high -testing mathoids. She's now getting her PhD in Research Psy, while my doctorate will be in Spanish Lit. Now because we constantly discuss our work, it's clear that her hero is Kahneman, from his earth-shattering, 1977 'heuristic' onwards. 

 

Briefly, Kahneman's heuristic is fast-thinking, rule of the thumb, emotively mixed, intuitional. Real, slow-thought is different, but people in general don't want to do it, if at all necessary.

 

Enter Rand. While all academic philosophy forces one to think slowly, most all of the discipline that's written for laypersons is heuristic, encouraging lazy thought. Yet her's, remarkably, is different, which is why I absolutely adore her.

 

Rand demands that one take thought seriously--part of this seriousness being a willful attitude of keeping up with science. in this respect, she regrettably passed away before she had the opportunity to give QM careful examination. 

 

Moreover, in my reading of her, she never confused the formal properties of logic (rules) for that genre of received wisdom which she fought so hard to oppose as intellectually laziness. 

 

in short, she would enthusiastically go with the established data as fundamentally telling the truth. To this end, i really can't imagine her denying photon-reality of non-locality for the sake of hee-hawing that such a state of affairs violates common sense.

 

This is because, for the most part, she insisted that common-sense, heuristic thought was wrong: her virtue was to have demonstrated this to laypersons. 

 

Harriman, then, is an embarrassment to Objectivism, and if Rand were alive today, she'd skin him alive.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harriman, then, is an embarrassment to Objectivism, and if Rand were alive today, she'd skin him alive.

I would consider this an arbitrary assertion. The supporting claims raised to draw this conclusion do not rest on the same style framework of integration that Harriman provides in either his book or his lectures - offering to tie the various developments into their relevant philosophic principles. In this case, in the end, it is relying on the game of "what if" to try to lend credence - in essence by relying on a recipients ignorance of Rands finer points and relying on a positive assessment of  Rand's merits grasped thus far, in order to superficially lend credibility to this style of an attempt to try and discredit Harriman.

 

For someone who is reportedly interested in Rand for her contributions to literature, I see little pursuit of that here. In the matter which instead seems to have you drawn like iron filings to a magnet or Newton's offer to raise no hypothesis with regard to the what that gravity may be, I have to note a seemingly relentless alternative pursuit.

 

As to demonstrating specifically how the science of mathematics violates the LOI, all I've seen is a couple of examples cited with which I am not familiar, with little or no effort to demonstrate their validity or invalidity as to how they tie, or fail to integrate with to the materials provided by man's senses.

 

On these grounds, you are sincerely trying my benevolence here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

 

No one is a 'moron' because the term refers to innate capacities. Rather hee-haw-ness refers to a lack of effort  that one has a right to demand of others. in other words, I 'm so hard on Harriman because he knows better.

I would think, rather than to try to offer up definitions or defenses for "hee-haw-ness" (or "Middel Amerika"?), it would be more productive to abandon that line of insult entirely, and redirect your efforts towards illuminating or critiquing ideas.

After all, does it matter what anyone's personal evaluation of Harriman is, or how much "effort" we suspect he's put in? If that were the subject of the thread, I can't imagine that anyone would care to participate. If, however, the subject is about the intersection of science and philosophy (or settling specific scientific controversies), then let's talk about that.

 

in short, she would enthusiastically go with the established data as fundamentally telling the truth. To this end, i really can't imagine her denying photon-reality of non-locality for the sake of hee-hawing that such a state of affairs violates common sense.

 

This is because, for the most part, she insisted that common-sense, heuristic thought was wrong: her virtue was to have demonstrated this to laypersons.

Guessing what Ayn Rand may or may not have thought about QM, I think, says nothing with respect to QM, or to the Law of Identity.

 

Harriman, then, is an embarrassment to Objectivism, and if Rand were alive today, she'd skin him alive.

 

AH

When I'd said "I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of particular people," what I meant was that I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of particular people. :)

If Ayn Rand were to skin David Harriman alive, I'd hope that she would do so by laying bare Harriman's specific arguments and showing precisely where they fall apart. That is to say, I would hope that she would direct her efforts towards illuminating the underlying ideas (or towards the science, if that was where the matter of disagreement finally lay).

While I appreciate your sharing your personal context -- and I do -- the truth is that I saw questions in this thread (edited: or, rather, the _other_ thread) as to whether or not the Law of Identity could conceivably be threatened or overthrown by QM. I've argued that it cannot, and I think I've found sufficient agreement in your replies to consider that matter settled.

I think I've also attempted to address the question of whether or not Objectivism, as a philosophy, is prejudiced against science or whether it is well-situated to reject false, "common-sensical" views when those views are shown faulty through further investigation. While arguing against the former, and for the latter, I've contrasted this to individual Objectivists who might yet be mistaken in their understanding of science -- which is also true of any other population.

What remains is the actual subject of QM itself, and for that conversation, I am ill-equipped. So I think I've contributed what I'm able. Thank you for your time.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that although all statements ultimately depend upon logic, the article confuses [...]

I'm afraid we have a big misunderstanding here. I was not (yet?) talking about the article, but about the implication contained in the first post in this topic – by Plasmatic. That post implied that if Kirchhoff Law proves to be wrong, then the validity of Quantum Mechanics would be questioned. I challenged Plasmatic's implicit assertion.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two examples:

 

To find the Ho;y Grail of differential geometry--the Lie 8-- a team from Columbia /NYU constructed its own computer that would test the compatibility of what turned out to be a NYC phone book number of coefficients-- which could be interrelated in a permutation that ran into the billions. All interrelations would yield up different hypothetical models, but only one solution could be correct.

 

Two weeks later--bingo! What the team also found out was that the hypotheses-testing program was correct. Humans by themselves could not have tested all one billion of the hypotheses. Assuming that the left-hand A could be found to exist,  any posited right-side A had one-billionth chance to match as an 'identity'.

 

Then there's the story of Ms Mirzakhani drawing multiple diagrams of the Riemann Manifold with her daughters crayolas, looking for ways to describe it on a curved surface. On receiving Math's top prize, she thanked her daughter for being such a good sport because there were some days when mommy used up all of the paper!

 

Hypotheses, all.

My response on this portion may have be a little hasty, and in reviewing, I notice the Hypotheses, all at the end.

 

Your first example here appears to use a different context of "identity" than what I've come to entail as lying at the base of my philosophical understandings. The second one, was addressed elsewhere here with regard to Edgard C. De Smet, founder of the Edgard C. DeSmet School of Planography. While not the "Ho:y Grail", as you put it, it's methods of recruitment are exacting. As an extremely proud alumni, I have yet to have chanced across a suitable pupil to recommend. The ring upon which the pin has been enshrined is worn along with the pin in my lapel of serving as the distinction of having studied at the feet of the masters sworn to protect the Emperor of Japan.

 

While I am not samurai, the code of the Bushido is emblazoned on my life. I've since withdrawn from the physical rigors demanded by the art in favor of more intellectual pursuits. Do with that what you may. I think I'm done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consider this an arbitrary assertion. The supporting claims raised to draw this conclusion do not rest on the same style framework of integration that Harriman provides in either his book or his lectures - offering to tie the various developments into their relevant philosophic principles. In this case, in the end, it is relying on the game of "what if" to try to lend credence - in essence by relying on a recipients ignorance of Rands finer points and relying on a positive assessment of  Rand's merits grasped thus far, in order to superficially lend credibility to this style of an attempt to try and discredit Harriman.

 

For someone who is reportedly interested in Rand for her contributions to literature, I see little pursuit of that here. In the matter which instead seems to have you drawn like iron filings to a magnet or Newton's offer to raise no hypothesis with regard to the what that gravity may be, I have to note a seemingly relentless alternative pursuit.

 

As to demonstrating specifically how the science of mathematics violates the LOI, all I've seen is a couple of examples cited with which I am not familiar, with little or no effort to demonstrate their validity or invalidity as to how they tie, or fail to integrate with to the materials provided by man's senses.

 

On these grounds, you are sincerely trying my benevolence here.

Yes, i'm relying on a 'what if' scenario that if Rand were alive, she would not be erroneously confusing a heuristic statement of common sense (Hee-Haw)  with formal logic. So are you saying that i'm wrong, and that she would?

 

In other words, i don't need Rand's support to discredit Harriman; rather only to suggest that his brand of Objectivism qua Rand is far from the only way of understanding her life's work. For example, David Kelly seems to have a far more open-ended commitment than Peikhoff.

 

The three examples I gave of mathematicians openly stating that they used the scientific method of hypotheses (Last Fermat, Riemann Curvature, Lie-8) are significant to the extent that mathematicians generally work  in private, with lots of paper, pencils, and a wastepaper basket. Unlike most other sciences, the errors (false hypotheses) remain unseen, as there is no experimental trace. We've gained insight into the general method because Mukhazani, Wyl, and the NYU-Columbia gang openly discussed it.

 

The "materials provided by the senses" are called 'quantities'. We derive said quantities because of our innate abilities to take in sensory data that is countable. To this end, research psychology rejects the old notion that countable objects are first perceived by our senses,then computed as quantities by an internal thingamajig.

 

Rather, the internal thingamajig 'counts', innately.The learning process concerns what, with respect to learned culture, is counted.

 

But math cannot be reduced to counting, or even 'computing'. Arithmetic is necessary, but not sufficient to explain math. Nor is there any real evidence that it sprung up from this. 

 

Rather, math is derived from homo sapiens' innate ability to symbolize, which in the neurosci sense means another, distinct thingamajig located upstairs. (Names of said thingamajigs are known by by bestie, who's getting her PhD in Research Psych.).

 

In a simpler sense. we have mounds of medical data that demonstrate that those who lose one part of their brain can't count, but can do geometry, and vice-versa.

 

So it's obvious from both people-observation and brain-prodding that math is basically an innate  symbolic activity that's wedded onto counting to give results. That's why math's formal proofs are not quantified. They  exist by means of the discovery/creation of symbols and their relationships.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think, rather than to try to offer up definitions or defenses for "hee-haw-ness" (or "Middel Amerika"?), it would be more productive to abandon that line of insult entirely, and redirect your efforts towards illuminating or critiquing ideas.

After all, does it matter what anyone's personal evaluation of Harriman is, or how much "effort" we suspect he's put in? If that were the subject of the thread, I can't imagine that anyone would care to participate. If, however, the subject is about the intersection of science and philosophy (or settling specific scientific controversies), then let's talk about that.

 

Guessing what Ayn Rand may or may not have thought about QM, I think, says nothing with respect to QM, or to the Law of Identity.

 

When I'd said "I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of particular people," what I meant was that I don't mean to turn this into a discussion of particular people. :)

If Ayn Rand were to skin David Harriman alive, I'd hope that she would do so by laying bare Harriman's specific arguments and showing precisely where they fall apart. That is to say, I would hope that she would direct her efforts towards illuminating the underlying ideas (or towards the science, if that was where the matter of disagreement finally lay).

While I appreciate your sharing your personal context -- and I do -- the truth is that I saw questions in this thread (edited: or, rather, the _other_ thread) as to whether or not the Law of Identity could conceivably be threatened or overthrown by QM. I've argued that it cannot, and I think I've found sufficient agreement in your replies to consider that matter settled.

I think I've also attempted to address the question of whether or not Objectivism, as a philosophy, is prejudiced against science or whether it is well-situated to reject false, "common-sensical" views when those views are shown faulty through further investigation. While arguing against the former, and for the latter, I've contrasted this to individual Objectivists who might yet be mistaken in their understanding of science -- which is also true of any other population.

What remains is the actual subject of QM itself, and for that conversation, I am ill-equipped. So I think I've contributed what I'm able. Thank you for your time.

My point within your context is that Harriman's smart-ass remarks discourage his listeners (ostensibly Objectivist- inclined) to understand QM on its own terms.

 

On my own terms,--as an individual who has taken a course or two-- I find his use of 'fairytale' to be offensive and disgusting. 

 

'Hee-Haw' describes a social-psychological phenomena that exists independently of Harriman's remarks. Again, it means bootlegging in a heuristic, or common-sense' notion, to replace formal logic. And yes, i do associate this serious error with a middle-american accepted mode of thought--with or without the 'k' and the 't's'.

 

In other words, he's shamefully playing up to a crowd.

 

Lastly, the specifics that you're requesting are clearly belabored by this point, but i'll repeat them, anyway. Harriman says that the fairytale of QM is its claim that photons can be in two places at once, which violates the law of identity. He's wrong on both counts.

 

First, they are. Second, his claim to the contrary admittedly violates common sense, not LOI. But those who really do QM, such as Feynman, have always admitted to said violation of common sense...

 

AH 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid we have a big misunderstanding here. I was not (yet?) talking about the article, but about the implication contained in the first post in this topic – by Plasmatic. That post implied that if Kirchhoff Law proves to be wrong, then the validity of Quantum Mechanics would be questioned. I challenged Plasmatic's implicit assertion.

First, I do believe that Plasmatic correctly interpreted the thrust of the article: because the Black Box is not an empirical reality, all subsequent experiments based upon said Black Box must necessarily be false. If so, therefore Kirchoff's Law is false, too. After all, he's the one who created it!

 

My point is that because black Box was never seen as an anything more than a gedanken, its empirical reality is moot.  

 

But Planck's box--totally 'black' or not, was real. So were the measurements. And because only at extremely high levels of radiation (uv-short waves) was there a discrepancy between measured  input vs Kirchoff-predicted output, material absorption as described by Stewart was not a factor. 

 

Planck's explanation was: a) photons stick to any materials, thereby are absorbed, and B) bounce off of each other; both account for the loss of outputted energy. 

 

Planck's correct theorizing was conformed by more experimentation, most notably that of Einstein and Compton, both of whom even made it into my high-school 'honors' text.

 

So yes, you're correct and Plasmatic is wrong. That Planck was 'inspired' by a person whose 'Law' he severely revised does not refute the refuter. Otherwise, no science would be true because refuting is what science does.

 

AH

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, i'm relying on a 'what if' scenario that if Rand were alive, she would not be erroneously confusing a heuristic statement of common sense (Hee-Haw)  with formal logic. So are you saying that i'm wrong, and that she would?

I'm simply trying to understand by seeking the right questions to go about asking in the process of doing so (understanding, that is). If this is simply Socratic in nature, then pass the hemlock, my job is done here. Otherwise, put up, or shut up; to put it more euphemistically.

Edited by dream_weaver
grammatical clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a lot of time tonight but I want to ask that this thread not be confused with the previous one, which is happening in spades. Andie has a way of dragging their nonsense across to every thread they post to. This thread is not about the Harriman coined "fairytale"- philosophical errors of the founders of quantum mechanics. I'd prefer that line cease and be placed in the prior thread. This thread is about the special science claims in the papers I posted on Kirchoff's Law and Planck's derivation from it. Any criticism need to be limited to the claims in the papers and not mixed with the previous discussion of philosophic errors in certain QM interpretations.

I will respond to those posts which address the OP topic and ask that the other discussions be removed if possible to the previous, or other thread.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply trying to understand by seeking the right questions to go about asking in the process of doing so (understanding, that is). If this is simply Socratic in nature, then pass the hemlock, my job is done here. Otherwise, put up, or shut up; to put it more euphemistically.

 

I don't have a lot of time tonight but I want to ask that this thread not be confused with the previous one, which is happening in spades. Andie has a way of dragging their nonsense across to every thread they post to. This thread is not about the Harriman coined "fairytale"- philosophical errors of the founders of quantum mechanics. I'd prefer that line cease and be placed in the prior thread. This thread is about the special science claims in the papers I posted on Kirchoff's Law and Planck's derivation from it. Any criticism need to be limited to the claims in the papers and not mixed with the previous discussion of philosophic errors in certain QM interpretations.

I will respond to those posts which address the OP topic and ask that the other discussions be removed if possible to the previous, or other thread.

My #65 was a response to Don Athos who took the liberty of dragging across his last post from 'QM'. It had remained unanswered only due to the moderator having closed the thread prior to my being able to post an answer.

 

In any case, for those of us who know anything about QM to begin with, any discussion of Planck obviously refers back to its status as either 'fact or fantasy'.

 

'Andie' is a singular 'me'-- not a plural 'their' or 'they'. Perhaps i might assume that, in equal measure, 'Plas and 'Weaver' are heteronyms?

 

Re nonsense,  yours is clearly exposed in my #66.  

 

I would furthermore bet that said 'special science claims' will not be discussed by you, as you seem to know no science to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I do believe that Plasmatic correctly interpreted the thrust of the article ...  Kirchoff's Law is false ... So yes, you're correct and Plasmatic is wrong. ...

 

OMG, you still didn't get it! I questioned the connection between Kirchhoff Law and QM. I wrote nothing about the paper itself. This paper purports to show that Kirchhoff Law is invalid. I didn't dispute this conclusion, neither supported it. My qualm is with the consequences of the possible fall of Kirchhoff Law on the validity of the modern QM. You didn't address this after so many clarifications on my part, so there is no point in continuing. Thanks anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG, you still didn't get it! I questioned the connection between Kirchhoff Law and QM. I wrote nothing about the paper itself. This paper purports to show that Kirchhoff Law is invalid. I didn't dispute this conclusion, neither supported it. My qualm is with the consequences of the possible fall of Kirchhoff Law on the validity of the modern QM. You didn't address this after so many clarifications on my part, so there is no point in continuing. Thanks anyway.

I went to some pains to demonstrate  what Kirchoff actually says in relation to QM in terms of an interesting historical development (You're welcome!).

 

Otherwise, bluntly, it's utter nonsense to infer that any critique of Kirchoff has anything to do with QM.

 

That's because, like any science, today's QM stands on its own research and data--not upon 19-th century gedanken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point within your context is that Harriman's smart-ass remarks discourage his listeners (ostensibly Objectivist- inclined) to understand QM on its own terms.

 

On my own terms,--as an individual who has taken a course or two-- I find his use of 'fairytale' to be offensive and disgusting. 

 

'Hee-Haw' describes a social-psychological phenomena that exists independently of Harriman's remarks. Again, it means bootlegging in a heuristic, or common-sense' notion, to replace formal logic. And yes, i do associate this serious error with a middle-american accepted mode of thought--with or without the 'k' and the 't's'.

 

In other words, he's shamefully playing up to a crowd.

 

Lastly, the specifics that you're requesting are clearly belabored by this point, but i'll repeat them, anyway. Harriman says that the fairytale of QM is its claim that photons can be in two places at once, which violates the law of identity. He's wrong on both counts.

 

First, they are. Second, his claim to the contrary admittedly violates common sense, not LOI. But those who really do QM, such as Feynman, have always admitted to said violation of common sense...

 

AH

See, it appears to me at this point that your interest lies in talking about people -- not ideas, not QM, not science or philosophy. I say this because I've said a couple of times now that I'm not interested in this line of conversation, and yet you continue to come back to it, devoting nearly this whole post to your opinion of Harriman, and further developing this "hee-haw" notion, which -- I say in benevolence -- does not reflect well on you.

But why would I care about your opinion of Harriman? Why would anyone? As far as I can tell, it is completely irrelevant to the evidence and the arguments that would lead a rational person to accepting (or rejecting) any particular theory of QM or Planck or anything else, and thus your insistence in discussing these distracting and tangential issues leads me to believe that you don't have much more to contribute on the central subject matter... Or, if you do, that perhaps you mean simply to pick a fight. Either way, it is disappointing.

To be clear, I don't ask that we discuss ideas over people for the sake of protecting Harriman. I don't know him, have never met him, have not read his book, and I have no interest in holding him up. For all I know, you are correct in your evaluation of him. Maybe he's completely wrong and maybe he is doing the world a disservice in voicing his false claims. But how would I evaluate such a thing, to know whether to agree or disagree with you? How else, except by first examining his views in themselves and then examining the relevant evidence, and then arguing out what is correct and what is false -- which is precisely what I ask you to concentrate on instead.

I respect the fact that you have "taken a course or two." In looking at his page, I find that Harriman has post-graduate degrees in both physics and philosophy, and has worked professionally as a physicist. That's not to say that he is therefore correct, or that his opinions are superior to your own, but speaking from my own perspective, I don't believe I yet have any reason to take your word for it that Harriman is wrong, or to prefer your opinion to his. If you are correct and he is wrong, then I need that to be demonstrated... and that probably means referring to his works (with applicable supporting quotation), parsing his arguments (demonstrating along the way that his arguments are, importantly, understood), and then laying out the contrary argument, with whatever evidence and reasoning that requires.

It's a painstaking process and perhaps you don't think it worth your time, but as I say, I think that's the useful conversation to have on this subject. After all, if you think that Harriman does harm by discouraging Objectivists from understanding QM, then this is your opportunity to directly address that injustice -- not by insulting Harriman ("hee-haw") -- but by appealing to Objectivists' love for reason, and demonstrating conclusively that Harriman's position is unreasonable. If you're correct, then that's an important endeavor and I hope you'll decide to pursue it. If you're wrong, then perhaps the pursuit itself will help you to come to understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, it appears to me at this point that your interest lies in talking about people -- not ideas, not QM, not science or philosophy. I say this because I've said a couple of times now that I'm not interested in this line of conversation, and yet you continue to come back to it, devoting nearly this whole post to your opinion of Harriman, and further developing this "hee-haw" notion, which -- I say in benevolence -- does not reflect well on you.

But why would I care about your opinion of Harriman? Why would anyone? As far as I can tell, it is completely irrelevant to the evidence and the arguments that would lead a rational person to accepting (or rejecting) any particular theory of QM or Planck or anything else, and thus your insistence in discussing these distracting and tangential issues leads me to believe that you don't have much more to contribute on the central subject matter... Or, if you do, that perhaps you mean simply to pick a fight. Either way, it is disappointing.

To be clear, I don't ask that we discuss ideas over people for the sake of protecting Harriman. I don't know him, have never met him, have not read his book, and I have no interest in holding him up. For all I know, you are correct in your evaluation of him. Maybe he's completely wrong and maybe he is doing the world a disservice in voicing his false claims. But how would I evaluate such a thing, to know whether to agree or disagree with you? How else, except by first examining his views in themselves and then examining the relevant evidence, and then arguing out what is correct and what is false -- which is precisely what I ask you to concentrate on instead.

I respect the fact that you have "taken a course or two." In looking at his page, I find that Harriman has post-graduate degrees in both physics and philosophy, and has worked professionally as a physicist. That's not to say that he is therefore correct, or that his opinions are superior to your own, but speaking from my own perspective, I don't believe I yet have any reason to take your word for it that Harriman is wrong, or to prefer your opinion to his. If you are correct and he is wrong, then I need that to be demonstrated... and that probably means referring to his works (with applicable supporting quotation), parsing his arguments (demonstrating along the way that his arguments are, importantly, understood), and then laying out the contrary argument, with whatever evidence and reasoning that requires.

It's a painstaking process and perhaps you don't think it worth your time, but as I say, I think that's the useful conversation to have on this subject. After all, if you think that Harriman does harm by discouraging Objectivists from understanding QM, then this is your opportunity to directly address that injustice -- not by insulting Harriman ("hee-haw") -- but by appealing to Objectivists' love for reason, and demonstrating conclusively that Harriman's position is unreasonable. If you're correct, then that's an important endeavor and I hope you'll decide to pursue it. If you're wrong, then perhaps the pursuit itself will help you to come to understand it.

Let's say that there are three people, 'Hong', 'Wei', and 'Athos'.

 

Hong and Athos are listening to a Youtube program in which Wei claims to speak in Chinese.

 

Athos states clearly that he knows no Chinese, and asks Hong, who claims to speak Chinese, for a translation.

 

Hong replies that Wei, although  speaking in Chinese, talks gibberish: "Green ideas sleep furiously". 

 

Athos, in his frustration in understanding no Chinese, accuses Hong of making ad hominem remarks....

 

Hong then replies to Athos that he should learn Chinese and determine for himself....

 

In other words,if you don't understand either the math or the experiments behind photon behavior, i'll be happy to explain. Otherwise, you have absolutely no basis in assuming that my remarks are personal. 

 

 

As for QM and formal logic, my points stay the same regardless of whether the subject in question is Harriman or not. 

 

To wit:

 

To say, "photons can be in two places at once' is not a statement that's determined to be true of false by rules of formal logic. 

 

Therefore, for anyone  to make this above statement an issue of formal logic is a serious error. 

 

I moreover  find this confusion between statements of content and those of formal logic to be rampant in the discursive practices of American lingua franca.

 

So because it occurs with predictable frequency, it deserves a name; "hee-hawing". 

 

To this end, my only personal point with Harriman is that he should know better.

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...