Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How Does 'A Is A' Work With Uncertainty Principle?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

All of these were considered just as self evident as anything we have today, yet nowadays they appear quaint.

Right... and why? Because those conclusions were not reached based on valid induction. It was presumptuous for Aristotle to conclude "something that is moving needs a force applied to keep it moving". That statements implies "anywhere", which he obviously did not have any evidence of objects moving in absence of friction (with the air). There is no way he should have made such an assumption, and no scientist today should repeat that mistake.

If the laws of induction are properly followed such incidents do not occur. Following those laws, Aristotle could only have concluded that "something that is moving through the air needs additional force applied to keep it moving". Aristotle would have benefitted from Dr. Peikoff's philosophical explanation of the validity of induction and the errors of induction: in this case, over-inducing (over-generalizing).

The relationship between science and philosophy is dialectical - science often forces us to renounce philosophical claims (see above)
Dream on. Philosophical claims reached through invalid induction only can and will be thrown out the window. Science is nothing more than induction applied to the physical realm through math (which itself presumes a vast philosophic basis). If the law of identity itself is false, you will have to show how the induction "all existents have identity" is an erroneous induction -- how it violated the laws of proper induction. And since there is no science necessary to make the induction in the first place, no science can be needed or even used to show otherwise. The best it could do is illustrate the false induction (if it be it false).

while philosophy guides our choice of of scientific theory.

Not comprehensive. Philosophy guides the choice, method, and means and defines the purpose of science. There simply ain't no such thing as "science"

without a plethora of philosophic premises underneath it.

Quantum physics will never force us to abandon the law of identity, but it might cause us to give up some dubious inferences that are drawn from it (eg physical determinism or locality). There is no valid inference from 'existence is identity" to either "metaphysical randomness is impossible" or "instantaneous travel cannot occur".

That, at least, we agree on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason why you couldnt use quantum theory to predict macroscopic phenomenon is the computational power involved. In terms of actual results, it would be completely accurate if you had the horsepower to do the calculation. Since this is out of the question, its more pragmatic to simplify and use classical mechanics in order to get an approximately correct answer.

To my knowledge, quantum theory has trouble explaining gravity. Thus, no matter how much "horsepower" you have, you will always get nonsensical results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right... and why?  Because those conclusions were not reached based on valid induction.  It was presumptuous for Aristotle to conclude "something that is moving needs a force applied to keep it moving".  That statements implies "anywhere", which he obviously did not have any evidence of objects moving in absence of friction (with the air).  There is no way he should have made such an assumption, and no scientist today should repeat that mistake.
What do you mean by 'valid induction'? You seem to be talking about induction in a way that I am unfamiliar with, so can you clarify?

On a sidenote, cant one (following your logic here) say that "Ayn Rand's statement that 'existence is identity' is an invalid induction - that statement implies "anywhere", whereas she did not have any experience with electrons in quantum physics"? I'm not saying I agree with this line of reasoning, only that it doesnt seem to be essentially different from yours.

If the laws of induction are properly followed such incidents do not occur.  Following those laws, Aristotle could only have concluded that "something that is moving through the air needs additional force applied to keep it moving".
And again, we can surely only conclude that "objects in the macroscopic world have identity". We are overgeneralising by assuming our statement will apply to new realms of experience, eg quantum physics.

If the law of identity itself is false, you will have to show how the induction "all existents have identity" is an erroneous induction -- how it violated the laws of proper induction. 
Following your reasoning, it seems to have violated the laws of proper induction by assuming without evidence that it applies on the quantum level. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, quantum theory has trouble explaining gravity. Thus, no matter how much "horsepower" you have, you will always get nonsensical results.

From my limited knowledge of physics, quantum mechanics would give completely accurate predictions of the macroscopic world (ie that which is described by classical mechanics). The incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity only arises under very special circumstances when you have a huge amount of mass in a tiny space (eg the first few moments after the big bang). I'm not a physicist though, so I'm not 100% sure that this is correct.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states, basically, that we can't understand everything about an elementary particle. We can't know both the momentum and position of an electron. Therefore, the properties of those particles are to a certain extent unknown.

Here are a physicist's views on the Uncertainty principle.

Basically he is arguing that

to observe the position of an electron, for example, one needs a probe, such as a photon, with very short wavelength to get any reliable accuracy. But a very short wavelength photon has a very high energy, and thus, the act of position measurement will simply destroy the accurate information of that electron's momentum.

He goes on to say that although this is true, it isn't really a manifestation of the Uncertainty Principle (UP). He says that the UP is actually about how well we can predict what will happen given a particular set of identical circumstances.

Also note your comment about the position and momentum of an electron. It is not possible to simultaneously measure with infinite accuracy the position and momentum of electron or any object due to the reasons given in the quote. However I don't think this applies to past positions and momentums of an electron. But then I am not a physicist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Lewis Little created of the "Theory of Elementary Waves". It answers both the Uncertainty Principle and the Schrodinger's cat paradox. The original paper can be found here.

Stephen Speicher, co-founder of the FORUMS for Ayn Rand Fans (here), is also a physicist. He wrote a summary of the theory for a non-technical audience, found here.

PRODOS, a radio host, has a website which facilitates discussion of the TEW, as well as links to other websites as well. That can be found here.

A radio interview between PRODOS and Dr. Lewis can be found here.

Please see my comments on this here.

Edited by Free Thinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was asking for a specific example so I could show you how it was NOT actually proven, only erroneously claimed to be proven.

I never said that I agreed that it had been actually proven, merely that it many have claimed that it has been. I do not beleive claims when as far as i can tell, reality contradicts it. I dont need you to prove it is a false claim, I already know that it is.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...