Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

QM - Fact or Fantasy

Rate this topic


andie holland

Recommended Posts

Let me try and explain where you err.

  1. The holy grail of pre-QM math/physics was the creation of a theoretical framework, by inductive reasoning, based on a priori (non-sensory dependent) truths.  This theoretical framework  would account for the imprecision of instrumental measurements (a posteriori  knowledge).  This is Subjectivism -- and the modern variant of it began with Kant, not Hume.  It's basically Theory vs. Practice, which is a dualism that, of course,  Objectivism rejects.  
  2. QM posed contradictions that could not be resolved by those who accepted the a priori/a posteriori dialectic (this includes both Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics).  QM posited that both a priori and a posteriori  knowledge were probabilistic.  Uncertainty ruled.  God did, indeed, roll the dice....
  3. There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).
  4. All knowledge is informed by experience (Objectivism).

I think the two of us can agree on the points above, but we disagree on the points below: 

  1. Observations inform generalizations. (My view)
  2. Generalizations do not inform observations. (My view, but not yours per your above statement).

To dramatically exaggerate the error or your statement about "general absolutes" consider the following:

  1. Beginning with the observation of a Mazda 3, a Ticonderoga HB pencil, a computer and the Super Bowl -- I can arrive at the "absolute generalization" that Existence Exists, and that I, as the observer, exist.
  2. Beginning with Existence Exists (the most fundamental "general absolute"), you cannot inductively reason the existence of yourself or the other things listed above.

Your belief that "absolute generalizations" will, over time, account for the inherent imprecision of observations is nothing more than a variant of,  "a priori truths will, over time, account for a posteriori observations." (i.e. Subjectivism).

Three points, please:

 

* Subjectivism began with Hume according to Kant himself, having been "shaken out of his dogmatic slumber". This is because Hume wrote that cause is not implicit in the inductive process. For example, we can observe a 100 trees swishing in the wind and still conclude that said trees, in every case, are responsible for making the wind blow.

 

Hume wrote that attaching cause is a process of the imagination--an internal mechanism altogether distinct from formal analysis. Hence, Kant was provoked to ask, "Are there synthetic a prioris?" Freely translated, this inquires to what extent is observed scientific data mind-dependent?

 

** Even before Bohr unleashed his QM Gang upon the world of Physics, in his own work he was stressing our mentalist relationship to nature via the use of instruments. His explanation, moreover, was openly Kantian. 

 

We only observe of nature what our instruments afford us the opportunity. These are called 'phenomena'. Otherwise, the essential thing- in- itself remains hidden. Furthermore following Kant, these neumenal, things- in- themselves are a product of our ability to imagine. So what we simply have is a mind-game in which what's posited in one faculty should not be confused with the actual process of doing science.

 

In other words, according to Bohr, QM does not represent any sort of rupture in scientific procedure. What's true of 'spooky action at a distance' mirrors the Newtonian non-explanation as to what gravity really is.

 

So what you have are two competing equations. While both the Schrodinger wave and all variants of particle-matrix and generalized field equations predict photons communicating in a system that extends to infinity, General Relativity says that all interactions are strictly local. The Aspect experiments proved Bohr correct and Einstein wrong.

 

Therefore, QM has not subjectivised anything at all. The epistemology of all science is mind-dependent to the extent that one accepts the Kantian model. Otherwise, rejecting the Kantian model entails an acceptance of QM as a complete naturalist explanation because the experimental results demonstrate that Bell's 'inequality' challenge is refuted.

 

*** Now here i should mention popular accounts of QM as offering 'a new way of thinking'--'Who's afraid of Schrodinger's Cat' being my best example. Enter Harriman & Cie into the fray to state that said 'new ways' are utter nonsense--and I agree.

 

My point, therefore, is that QM offers nothing new in the ways of thought. To this end, to agonize over entanglement (the impossibility of correctly observing a photon by means of an observational photon) is a false issue.  You simply do the math of probabilities and observe the final state. The outcome is what we know.

 

So my listening to Harriman reveals a spate of windmill-tilting on his part. No science will meet his standards, again, including Newton.

 

Harriman also fails to address the experimental data, again, religating his polemic towards new-age, post modern thought that has nothing, really, to do with the subject. He's therefore incapable of addressing the only important issue: is doing all science really as 'objective' as we would like to think it to be? is this desire for objective-ness nothing more than another neumenal outcome of the imagination?

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change and entropy are not synonymous and the universe is in perpetual motion. It never "started" and it can't "stop"....

Edit: Oist don't "start" with existence exist the way you claim in 3 and 2. Its implicit from the first awareness but knowledge of it comes after knowing particular things...

Re:  "Change and entropy....universe...never started"

The Big Bang theory does not posit that the Universe "started".  It only posits that - in the past - the Universe was at a much lower state of entropy than it is now.  Observation informs us that all things are expanding away from all other things.  This implies that, in the past, all things were very much closer than they are now.  As things get closer, temperature increases to the point that the weak and strong nuclear forces break-down, rendering the chemical elements unstable.  As temperature continuers to increase protons, neutrons and electrons are, themselves, no longer stable.

 

To address both you and Dream Weaver in this post, I'm not using Entropy in a metaphorical or poetic way.  I'm trying to not be snarky, but are you both proposing to refute Thermodynamics?  I stated above that the primary concern of the applied sciences is devising ways to hold back entropy.  This is controversial?

 

Re:  "Oist don't start with existence exist the way you claim."

I am not claiming this.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've edited section A in such a way, as I think it should not substantially alter your meaning or intent.

I'm not partial to the term "inform" as used here and am suggesting "derived from" as a substitute that I usually use when I see it used out there in this manner.

If so, I should be able to reword B1 an keep the meaning the same. I can't do that with B2, and would suggest that this would be the most fundamental point to address.

 

Would you agree with this assessment so far?

 

Plasmatic, I see three point 2's in this and point 3 is not raising a flag to me as I read it.

I appreciate your effort, Dream Weaver, to try and follow the ideas that I'm developing.

 

I'm absolutely fine with adding "Objectivism rejects" regarding "God rolls the dice....".  This adds clarity to my point.  Thanks.

 

Regarding the use of the word "informed", this was specifically chosen.  It ties into my trying to integrate Information Theory into Objectivist Epistemology.  I hope to address this in another post shortly.  I'm glad you picked up on the word....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddha said:

No, of course I reject the very notion of a priori knowledge and state so explicitly many times.

You are following the line of my argument correctly, Dream Weaver.

I did not say anything about you doing otherwise regarding the apriori. The question is being asked if you meant by:

There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).

that Objectivism hold to the above notion? What did you intend to signify by "Objectivism" in that statement?

You do not appear to be following the question Weaver and I are asking.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddha said:

Im not claiming this

Then you did not intend for:

Beginning with Existence Exists (the most fundamental "general absolute"), you cannot inductively reason the existence of yourself or the other things listed above.

There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).

to refer to tenets of Objectivism? If not, then who are you saying holds to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddha said:

Re: "Change and entropy....universe...never started"

The Big Bang theory does not posit that the Universe "started". It only posits that - in the past - the Universe was at a much lower state of entropy than it is now. Observation informs us that all things are expanding away from all other things. This implies that, in the past, all things were very much closer than they are now. As things get closer, temperature increases to the point that the weak and strong nuclear forces break-down, rendering the chemical elements unstable. As temperature continuers to increase protons, neutrons and electrons are, themselves, no longer stable.

1. I was saying the motion never "started". BB cosmology does indeed claim that motion began when the singularity went "bang"... I reject most consensus cosmology tenets and have better answers on all those points. I don't find the non philosophical errors - special science aspects of Standard Model physics very interesting to discuss here. The CMB does not prove expansion and certainly not uniform-homogenous expansion. I can send you info on this. My views on cosmology are highly controversial and I find few willing to consider the actual info rather than just dismiss it as non mainstream science. Either way the view that there was once a metaphysical singularity is a philosophical error to me. I prefer to stick to the philosophical here.

I have done much research on the historical development of thermodynamics and the concept "energy". I can tell you that originally the concept referred to entities causing motion in other entities before Mach, Otswald and the energeticist bastardized the concept into a substantival interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddha said:

1. I was saying the motion never "started". BB cosmology does indeed claim that motion began when the singularity went "bang"... I reject most consensus cosmology tenets and have better answers on all those points. I don't find the non philosophical errors - special science aspects of Standard Model physics very interesting to discuss here. The CMB does not prove expansion and certainly not uniform-homogenous expansion. I can send you info on this. My views on cosmology are highly controversial and I find few willing to consider the actual info rather than just dismiss it as non mainstream science. Either way the view that there was once a metaphysical singularity is a philosophical error to me. I prefer to stick to the philosophical here.

I have done much research on the historical development of thermodynamics and the concept "energy". I can tell you that originally the concept referred to entities causing motion in other entities before Mach, Otswald and the energeticist bastardized the concept into a substantival interpretation.

Plasmatic,

Thank you for posting this.  Too be honest, I tend to frame most of your posts as little more than cutting-N-pasting from ITOE, and Grammar Nazism.  I, too, am trying to explore "controversial" ideas regarding how Objectivism might extend to complex, scientific models, empirical data and information theory.

 

Rest assured that - despite my moniker - I am not a shaved-head, robe-wearing opium-smoking mystic.  I'm someone who has largely helped multi-billion dollar a year corporations develop land and buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. Let me try and explain where [i think] you err.

  • The holy grail of pre-QM math/physics was the creation of a theoretical framework, by inductive reasoning, based on a priori (non-sensory dependent) truths. This theoretical framework would account for the imprecision of instrumental measurements (a posteriori knowledge). This is Subjectivism -- and the modern variant of it began with Kant, not Hume. It's basically Theory vs. Practice, which is a dualism that, of course, Objectivism rejects.
  • QM posed contradictions that could not be resolved by those who accepted the a priori/a posteriori dialectic (this includes both Newtonian and Relativistic Mechanics). QM posited that both a priori and a posteriori knowledge were probabilistic. Uncertainty ruled. God did, indeed, roll the dice.... Objectivism rejects.
  • There is no such thing as a priori truths that somehow "pop" into our minds independent of experience (Objectivism).
  • All knowledge is informed by derived from experience (Objectivism).

 

B. I think the two of us can agree on the points above, but we disagree on the points below:
  • Observations inform generalizations. Generalizations are derived from observations. (My view)
  • Generalizations do not inform observations. (My view, but not yours per your above statement).

I appreciate your effort, Dream Weaver, to try and follow the ideas that I'm developing.

 

I'm absolutely fine with adding "Objectivism rejects" regarding "God rolls the dice....".  This adds clarity to my point.  Thanks.

 

Regarding the use of the word "informed", this was specifically chosen.  It ties into my trying to integrate Information Theory into Objectivist Epistemology.  I hope to address this in another post shortly.  I'm glad you picked up on the word....

By replacing "inform" with "derived from", I would claim B1 is consonant with my view as well.

Trying to do this with B2 brings to the forefront how previously formed generalization might influence how we derive from our observations. "Check your premises" in this sense, is to examine which generalization(s) are being relied upon to guide us in what we are deriving from our current observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, of course I reject the very notion of a priori knowledge and state so explicitly many times.

 

You are following the line of my argument correctly, Dream Weaver.

 

This establishes that you reject the very notion of a priori knowledge.

Buddha said:

I did not say anything about you doing otherwise regarding the apriori. The question is being asked if you meant by:

that Objectivism hold to the above notion? What did you intend to signify by "Objectivism" in that statement?

You do not appear to be following the question Weaver and I are asking.

 

I think what is being asked in addition to this is, would you concur that Objectivism rejects a priori knowledge or truths, as well? This may come off as a subtle distinction here, but should add some clarity to this aspect of the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re:  "Change and entropy....universe...never started"

The Big Bang theory does not posit that the Universe "started".  It only posits that - in the past - the Universe was at a much lower state of entropy than it is now.  Observation informs us that all things are expanding away from all other things.  This implies that, in the past, all things were very much closer than they are now.  As things get closer, temperature increases to the point that the weak and strong nuclear forces break-down, rendering the chemical elements unstable.  As temperature continuers to increase protons, neutrons and electrons are, themselves, no longer stable.

 

To address both you and Dream Weaver in this post, I'm not using Entropy in a metaphorical or poetic way.  I'm trying to not be snarky, but are you both proposing to refute Thermodynamics?  I stated above that the primary concern of the applied sciences is devising ways to hold back entropy.  This is controversial?

 

Re:  "Oist don't start with existence exist the way you claim."

I am not claiming this.

I think you may be addressing this post too by addressing both Plasmatic and myself:

This is an interesting alternative. To declare it a false alternative, as I understand false alternative, is to posit a third. While I'm not completely satisfied with this as a third alternative, I'll try to articulate it here.

Children, left to themselves, generally develop an anthropomorphic view of causality.

One of the Greek achievements was to divorce ourselves from this view.

In The Logical Leap, Harriman describe causality in Greek terms, with human causality as a sub-type.

In Selected Topics in the Philosophy of Science, Binswanger talks about entropy. The gist of it, to me, boiled down to:That which is most likely to occur, does.

After reading your reply here, the question that comes to my mind is along the lines of: Is the grasp of entropy contrasted against a perpetual motion machine on a deeper level, an anthropomorphic projection in some way?

I am unaware of any grounds to dismiss entropy on. My contention is that some misuse it to support a non-eternal view of existence. If you don't hold that the universe "started", how does that undermine existence being thought of as perpetual motion. In life, stillness leads to death. Is the natural state of matter stillness or motion? If the natural state of matter is motion, is this not consonant with perpetual motion given there is no "start"?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per #40, we all agree that both Relativity and QM violate the Law of Identity. This means that, in the terms that Aristotle set for science, both relativity and QM are nonsense.

 

Per #40, I also  explained that the first violation of identity came with the advent of induction, in Bacon's 'New Method'. Now unless, of course you find anything that directly contradicts Randian doxology to be 'superfluous', you might consider ...(?!).

 

That you pose the issue of philosophy as as either having  'veto power' or 'bauble' begs far more questions than it answers. Again, you make the endeavor no more than a talking horse with nothing to say.

 

AH

FWIW, I've read Einstein's Theory of Relatively and find it, in general, to be a description of appearances. The fact that you cite for yourself that both Relativity and QM violate the Law of Identity is enough for me to disregard both as nonsense. While I may be ignorant of some aspects of science, I familiarize my with what I deem, by my mind, to be relevant. As a draftsman, dealing with analytical geometry, I tend to specialize in geometry and mathematics. To be effective in this field, I have to rely on people I evaluate as capable of explaining certain principles to me that I may not fully understand.

 

The means by which I judge who I listen to, and who I disregard, is philosophy. This is not a cloak, as I do not try to hide behind it, but a coat of armor that protects me from spurious claims. If this is a game, as you seem to imply, then the one who will excel at it is the one who best understands it. Then again, the one that best understands it may recognize that it is not really a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I've read Einstein's Theory of Relatively and find it, in general, to be a description of appearances. The fact that you cite for yourself that both Relativity and QM violate the Law of Identity is enough for me to disregard both as nonsense. While I may be ignorant of some aspects of science, I familiarize my with what I deem, by my mind, to be relevant. As a draftsman, dealing with analytical geometry, I tend to specialize in geometry and mathematics. To be effective in this field, I have to rely on people I evaluate as capable of explaining certain principles to me that I may not fully understand.

 

The means by which I judge who I listen to, and who I disregard, is philosophy. This is not a cloak, as I do not try to hide behind it, but a coat of armor that protects me from spurious claims. If this is a game, as you seem to imply, then the one who will excel at it is the one who best understands it. Then again, the one that best understands it may recognize that it is not really a game.

My far-larger point--made many times elsewhere on this thread-- was that all science, qua the experimental method and hypotheses formation, violate the Law of Identity. 

 

What's interesting about QM is that The merry Pranksters, led on by Godfather Bohr ('Walvater?!), enjoyed pushing home this point: "See, what we're doing is soooo illogical!"

 

It's been there all along. Gravity is no more nonsensical than Spooky Action at a Distance. Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Wigner, Gamow, and yes, Feyman enjoyed poking holes in philosophy that could not work with science.

 

The means by which one judges whom to listen and disregard is called a 'belief system'. By contrast, 'Philosophy' is a means of questioning said beliefs. This distinction is precisely why Objectivism remains marginal to academia, where all belief systems, without exception, are given the rough treatment...just ask Kelly and Peikhoff.

 

As for games, what I see is this: those who are intellectually lazy or who simply cannot understand science use belief systems as a palliative. Otherwise, barring expertise in a field, you'd seek to understand science on its own terms and then employ philosophy to derive meaning.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My far-larger point--made many times elsewhere on this thread-- was that all science, qua the experimental method and hypotheses formation, violate the Law of Identity. 

 

Except, for the fact that all science does not violate the Law of Identity, this makes perfect sense. Given that you've made this point several times suggests you're not trying to make sense.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The means by which one judges whom to listen and disregard is called a 'belief system'. By contrast, 'Philosophy' is a means of questioning said beliefs. This distinction is precisely why Objectivism remains marginal to academia, where all belief systems, without exception, are given the rough treatment...just ask Kelly and Peikhoff.

 

As for games, what I see is this: those who are intellectually lazy or who simply cannot understand science use belief systems as a palliative. Otherwise, barring expertise in a field, you'd seek to understand science on its own terms and then employ philosophy to derive meaning.

 

AH

While Peikoff still remains with us, Kelly would be difficult to ask. As sweeping Objectivism under your rug as a 'belief system', it is your beliefs that drive you to do so. This is precisely because philosophy is an inescapable power, whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

When I seek to understand science on it's own terms, I seek out sources I deem as reliable, and even then, I have to scrutinize the materials to ensure they measure up. If this is the hallmark of intellectual laziness in your 'belief system', then I'd say you've probably gotten what you paid for without having learned how to inspect the merchandise..

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, for the fact that all science does not violate the Law of Identity, this makes perfect sense. Given that you've made this point several times suggests you're not trying to make sense.

Name one. When you do . i'm going to come back and show you how your example is still under scrutiny for clarification and refinement: A really isn't as A-ish as we supposed.

 

All established Laws of science are still questioned in this manner, because it's inherent within the process of hypotheses formation (zero sum) and method of testing. 

 

The most absurd example of this is gravity. Experimental data clearly indicates that the Newtonian principle is wrong because matter does not have an attractive property. As to how Harriman could have missed this is beyond belief; to posit Newton as a model for inquiry is laughable.

 

Repeating salient points in an obiter dictate fashion can suggest several modes of discourse.

Namely:

* simply showing different ways and perspectives of seeing the particular issue.

** patience

*** A refusal on the part of the listener/reader to accept facts that contradict his/her belief system.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name one. When you do . i'm going to come back and show you how your example is still under scrutiny for clarification and refinement: A really isn't as A-ish as we supposed.

 

All established Laws of science are still questioned in this manner, because it's inherent within the process of hypotheses formation (zero sum) and method of testing. 

 

The most absurd example of this is gravity. Experimental data clearly indicates that the Newtonian principle is wrong because matter does not have an attractive property. As to how Harriman could have missed this is beyond belief; to posit Newton as a model for inquiry is laughable.

 

Repeating salient points in an obiter dictate fashion can suggest several modes of discourse.

Namely:

* simply showing different ways and perspectives of seeing the particular issue.

** patience

*** A refusal on the part of the listener/reader to accept facts that contradict his/her belief system.

 

AH

2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples.

2 inches + 2 inches = 4 inches.

2 dollars + 2 dollars = 4 dollars.

Need I go on?

These come from the one science I've investigated the most. I've especially enjoyed the scrutiny that Pat Corvini has provided for clarification and refinement in the field.

 

I'd say I've shown remarkable patience with you. Are you really interested in trying my patience?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples.

2 inches + 2 inches = 4 inches.

2 dollars + 2 dollars = 4 dollars.

Need I go on?

These come from the one science I've investigated the most. I've especially enjoyed the scrutiny that Pat Corvini has provided for clarification and refinement in the field.

 

I'd say I've shown remarkable patience with you. Are you really interested in trying my patience?

Biology asks, 'What's an apple?

Physics asks, 'What's the best unit of measurement?

Economics asks, 'What's money?

 

Science is only reducible to arithmetic to those who don't know the science to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you can explain how and why the arithmetic works, and demonstrate how it violates the law of identity, you might have something of interest here. Until then I'd recommend the book "What to Say When you Talk To Yourself" by Shad Helmstetter.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you can explain how and why the arithmetic works, and demonstrate how it violates the law of identity, you might have something of interest here. Until then I'd recommend the book "What to Say When you Talk To Yourself" by Shad Helmstetter.

I believe that the subject under discussion is 'science', not 'arithmetic'.

 

Indeed, however, a Godel-esque foray into arithmetic would indicate incompleteness, therefore non-identity. But this isn't the issue at hand.

 

Rather, while science uses arithmetic, there's far more to its method than this basic function: arithmetic is 'necessary', but not 'sufficient', as it is generally said to be.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gödel, using maths, suggested he had proved that there are limits to what maths can prove. Objectivism holds that evidence has limits (identity) as well. This, to me, is far from being non-identity. In the landscape of simple arithmetic, this fails to demonstrate that the law of identity has no dominion. To me, by the time you abstract away all of the elements that contribute to say "four-ness", you are left with an identity that is exactly the same in each and every instance of it's occurrence.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gödel, using maths, suggested he had proved that there are limits to what maths can prove. Objectivism holds that evidence has limits (identity) as well. This, to me, is far from being non-identity. In the landscape of simple arithmetic, this fails to demonstrate that the law of identity has no dominion. To me, by the time you abstract away all of the elements that contribute to say "four-ness", you are left with an identity that is exactly the same in each and every instance of it's occurrence.

For the sake of argument, Gogel's Incompleteness is not about insufficient evidence. Rather, it states that even simple arithmetic lacks a complete logical foundation. A good example of this would be that in order to add two apples to three apples and get five apples, you have to already establish and agree upon what 'apples' are; the agreement would lie outside the operation called 'counting'. 

 

But then again...the topic I raised was 'scientific method and hypotheses' with respect to L of I. Going directly to the point, "Null Hypotheses" basically says that all hypotheses begin equally with null truth value. 

 

For example, take two competing hypotheses: gravity can/cannot bend light. Therefore, the capacity of a photon is that it cannot/can be bent. 

 

Now unless you're a Kantian and accept that true is-ness, or 'real' identity resides within the unknowable thing-in-itself, you're pretty much stuck with accepting that 'identity' has everything to do with observable capacities. Therefore, A=? because we don't accept either story prior to investigation.

 

moreover, assuming that we kind of know what the left-hand side A --or gravity--really is, you're still stuck with a constant update in the right side. In other words, A equals whatever received wisdom holds to be true, pending the inevitable.update.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the sake of argument, Gogel's Incompleteness is not about insufficient evidence. Rather, it states that even simple arithmetic lacks a complete logical foundation. A good example of this would be that in order to add two apples to three apples and get five apples, you have to already establish and agree upon what 'apples' are; the agreement would lie outside the operation called 'counting'. 

It is inside the operation called counting to which I am referring. Establishing and agreeing upon what apples are is a different application of the law of identity. In the science of mathematics, specifically within the scope of arithmetic, the question is how does the operation identified as counting violate the law of identity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...