The Guru Kid Posted March 30, 2007 Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 Hello all, I'm the president of my college's (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) philosophy club and being in a technical institute (rated #1 by princeton review in political apathy) I'm trying to hold discussions that pertain to science. One of my physics professors, who is also an Ayn Rand fan, has agreed to give a talk on the subject taking the view that QM is misunderstood and doesn't violate the basic axioms. My fundamental concern is about narrowing such a broad topic so that it is interesting to both physicists and philosophers. Also, i would like to advertise with a catchy phrase so that people would show up for this. Maybe some of the linguists can help me out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted March 30, 2007 Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 Hello all, I'm the president of my college's (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) philosophy club and being in a technical institute (rated #1 by princeton review in political apathy) I'm trying to hold discussions that pertain to science. One of my physics professors, who is also an Ayn Rand fan, has agreed to give a talk on the subject taking the view that QM is misunderstood and doesn't violate the basic axioms. My fundamental concern is about narrowing such a broad topic so that it is interesting to both physicists and philosophers. Also, i would like to advertise with a catchy phrase so that people would show up for this. Maybe some of the linguists can help me out here. Hello Guru Kid. Interesting and important topic you have there, I am thinking that this will be somewhat enjoyable, quite possibly very informative and possibly somewhat challenging at points, so heres hoping pretty good overall. I would hold that it is many of the interpretations that some adherents to QM make that bother Objectivists, and which no scientist can rationally cliam to be true. The multiple universe claims (the ones that claim they are multiple, seperate universes where different events happen in each universe), the interpretations of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle that argue subatomic particles have 'indetermine" positions and/or velocities (as in no definite location and or velocity, not just that we cannot determine such with our instruments), and the fact that certain equations etccan be balanced by matter/antimatter appearing from nowhere, colliding with antimatter/matter, cancelling each out except for a little radiaton that is released. That sort of thing should be interesting for both scientists and philosophers I would think. As for slogans, maybe something like: "Schrodingers Cat: Is it dead or alive? Come and find out!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 I would hold that it is many of the interpretations that some adherents to QM make that bother Objectivists, and which no scientist can rationally cliam to be true. The multiple universe claims (the ones that claim they are multiple, seperate universes where different events happen in each universe), the interpretations of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle that argue subatomic particles have 'indetermine" positions and/or velocities (as in no definite location and or velocity, not just that we cannot determine such with our instruments), and the fact that certain equations etccan be balanced by matter/antimatter appearing from nowhere, colliding with antimatter/matter, cancelling each out except for a little radiaton that is released. Those and the interpretation that particles can have inderminate states/all possible states until observed is what I have a problem with. Oh, and the intrepretation of elections being probability clouds! These two and the ones you mentioned definately defy the three axioms even if accurate QM interpretations do not. As for slogans, maybe something like: "Schrodingers Cat: Is it dead or alive? Come and find out!" Yes it is. Also, the Cat is one of the misunderstood ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 What about this one: "Don't be like the Parallel Universe you that missed out, come along!" Or: "There is only one way to resolve the Worcester Uncertainty...by coming along to the debate and finding out how it goes!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 I liked your first one better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Not being a linguist, there is only so far I can go without abit more effort in thinking up semi-revelant semi-catching slogans for this thing :-P Guru Kid => What about you simply make the topic: The Philosophical Problems with QM or something like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Your first is still the best I reckon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Why did you repeat that DM? That last suggestion is about a topic, not a slogan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Why did you repeat that DM? That last suggestion is about a topic, not a slogan. I was saying that even your last one didn't change my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Kid Posted March 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Thanks for the replies. I think i will use, "The philosophical problems with QM" as my title. Then i will have bullet points of some of the problems and perhaps at the end some catchy slogan about the cat. I will also try and research some of the Objectivist arguments against QM in detail so i can ask intelligent questions later. I'll try and post some sort of summary after the event. Cheers, Guru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Whatever catchy phrase you use, make that the eye-catcher... larger font, or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Also, i would like to advertise with a catchy phrase so that people would show up for this. Maybe some of the linguists can help me out here.You talking to me? Anyhow, I guess I'd first suggest that you talk to the professor more concretely about what he'd really like to talk about. He may have a clever title in mind. I'm sorta puzzled about the whole "Modern science is anti-Objectivist" shtick. I do understand that there a difference between the "basic math" of the theory, and different ontological claims of interpretations of the math. Thus the Copenhagen interpretation, the Oxford interpretation, etc. Maybe something like "Oxford v. Copenhagen" with a nice graphic of some English FC fans painted in the GB flag, and some Danish fans analogously painted. Not quite this v. this, but like it. The point is, the clever slogan should follow having a clear understanding of the content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 (edited) Thanks for the replies. I think i will use, "The philosophical problems with QM" as my title. Then i will have bullet points of some of the problems and perhaps at the end some catchy slogan about the cat. I will also try and research some of the Objectivist arguments against QM in detail so i can ask intelligent questions later. I'll try and post some sort of summary after the event. Cheers, Guru You are quite welcome, and I hope it goes well as to my awareness, QM is not heavily discussed in Objectivist circles despite the insane theories some of its adherents come up with, and the fact that to come up with such theories indicates (and its not the only indicator...) science is slipping back into mysticism. If you find any good resources, online or in the form of a book please let me know by PM or something if you would, I would greatly appreciate it. Oh yean and I look forward to the summary! Edited April 1, 2007 by Prometheus98876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 (edited) I will also try and research some of the Objectivist arguments against QM in detail so i can ask intelligent questions later. I'll try and post some sort of summary after the event. That would be great. I would love to read it. Being in New Zealand I can't get to the event, but reading a summary of it is the next best thing. Edited April 1, 2007 by DragonMaci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Kid Posted April 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 @DavidOdden I remember reading in one of the threads that you were a paid linguist. So yes, i was referring to you The professor actually wants to discuss how QM does not violate the law of identity (like i mentioned before, he's a Rand fan and considers himself an Objectivist). But knowing that most people on my campus would either not know or care about the law of identity, i decided to not make that the central theme. I wrote a paper last year about the death of science in Modern Physics (although i had mixed feelings about it being a physics major) heavily influenced by the Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. I don't know how to share the paper online but the point of it is that the new found goal of modern physics of uniting everything into one fundamental theory has driven physicists towards coming up with grander and more mystical theories: case in point being String Theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 @DavidOdden I remember reading in one of the threads that you were a paid linguist. So yes, i was referring to you The professor actually wants to discuss how QM does not violate the law of identity (like i mentioned before, he's a Rand fan and considers himself an Objectivist). But knowing that most people on my campus would either not know or care about the law of identity, i decided to not make that the central theme. I wrote a paper last year about the death of science in Modern Physics (although i had mixed feelings about it being a physics major) heavily influenced by the Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. I don't know how to share the paper online but the point of it is that the new found goal of modern physics of uniting everything into one fundamental theory has driven physicists towards coming up with grander and more mystical theories: case in point being String Theory. Sad, but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 @DavidOdden I remember reading in one of the threads that you were a paid linguist. So yes, i was referring to you The professor actually wants to discuss how QM does not violate the law of identity (like i mentioned before, he's a Rand fan and considers himself an Objectivist). But knowing that most people on my campus would either not know or care about the law of identity, i decided to not make that the central theme. I wrote a paper last year about the death of science in Modern Physics (although i had mixed feelings about it being a physics major) heavily influenced by the Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. I don't know how to share the paper online but the point of it is that the new found goal of modern physics of uniting everything into one fundamental theory has driven physicists towards coming up with grander and more mystical theories: case in point being String Theory. Ah, so Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle (and by extension Schrodingers Cat, meant to illustrate how bizarre certain QM claims are) will be a central topic then. Great, as its a pretty excellent place to start! Could you not email ir or something? Or do you need to get it onto a PC first somehow or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Ah, so Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle (and by extension Schrodingers Cat, meant to illustrate how bizarre certain QM claims are) will be a central topic then. Great, as its a pretty excellent place to start! Indeed it is. It sucks that we can't go doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.