I am sorry, I though Quantum Physics was the whole deal with the Quantum foam, and that you cannot be sure what is going to happen next, even if it has happenned 100 out of 100 times in the past.
I’m not sure what Quantum foam is (I’m not denying that it is something, I’m just not familiar with it, probably because I don’t know a lot about quantum physics, besides just some introductory texts on the subject that I’ve read). But the idea that you can’t be sure what is going to happen next, even if it has happened 100 out of 100 times in the past, is a denial of “induction”. Specifically, a denial of “induction by enumeration.” Induction is the formation of a general principle drawn from observations of particular concretes.
Induction by simple enumeration was one of the earliest theories of induction, which claims that you can form a general principle after you see something happen a certain amount of times-- for example, you see one person die, then another, and another, and eventually you can form the principle, “all men are mortal.”
But this version of induction does have limitations, because-- how do you know you’re not simply observing a coincidence, or that you’re not interpreting the data incorrectly? Aristotle (who is credited with first outlining the theory of induction) wasn’t sure how to answer this, but suggested that induction must be tempered with deductive reasoning in order to validate a principle. Francis Bacon later helped to establish the scientific method as a means of better validating induction.
David Hume is known for a famous “refutation” of induction, on skeptical grounds. Hence, the rejection of induction by the logical positivists, who were influenced by Hume (though they were less consistent). Hence, the probable surfacing of the idea that induction is impossible by modern spokesmen of quantum physics, who are possibly influenced by logical positivism.
Of course, Objectivists do not reject induction, but consider it an indispensable tool for gaining knowledge of reality. Ayn Rand wrote only tentatively on the subject, but many Objectivists now are attempting to elaborate on it, as well as better define and validate it and the proper principles for obtaining it (Leonard Peikoff has been working on a book on induction with physicist David Harriman, but it’s not finished yet).
Now I have a question regarding Logical Positivists. For all practical purposes, doesn’t have the same results as an Objectivist approach to science? Because in the end you are accepting the truth, and working with that, even if you don’t call it the truth, but you call it “the most probable.”
If you want to understand some critical differences between the conclusions drawn by logical positivists, and those drawn by Objectivists, study the works of an influential group of logical positivists called “The Vienna Circle.” This group published lots of wacky stuff, including an “index of forbidden words,” such as “mind”, “entity”, “essence”, “matter”, “reality”, and “thing” (that index was specifically the work of a member of the Vienna Circle named Otto Neurath, I believe).
Here’s another statement from Ayn Rand, regarding the logical positivists, from a letter to philosopher John Hospers in 1961:
It is in their concept of what constitutes “verifiability,” in their basic premise and approach (which is implicit in their specific, individual theories) that logical positivists become most mystical. You say: "One must be careful not to condemn it (the Verifiability Principle), en masse in all its forms’—because there have been many different formulations of it. Your statement implies that the Verifiability Principle is sound in essence, qua principle, and that it is only with its various formulations that one can legitimately quarrel. But what I challenge, oppose and condemn is the essence of that principle and of the method it proposes, in all and any of its variations. (I do not believe that “propositions” have to be “verified”; I believe that they have to be “validated”—it is a night-and-day difference.)
If you keep that in mind when researching logical positivism (assuming you’re still interested and plan on looking into it further), I think it will help you to understand (it’s helped clarify things for me-- but not so much that I can clearly elaborate on it here without looking over some old notes I’ve taken and articles I’ve read on logical positivism and the tortuous, chimeric development of the verifiability principle).
