Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

Well . . . philosophy gave us the US of A.

No, armed revolution and compromise to slave owners gave you the US of A.

That was a pragmatic set of actions.

 

[theprestige]

And yet again how does "philosophical" thinking help us in those categories?

Because it's optimized for discussions based on subjective axioms. Philosophy is what you do when you want to think rigorously about a question that science can't answer. Like what ideas to censor, and why.

 

[xjx388]

I mean c'mon . . . surely you don't actually believe what you're saying here, do you? How can scientific thinking ever get us the answer to a question like, "What rights should citizens of our country have?" What measurements and variables should we quantify to answer the question definitively and objectively?

"Why is this painting beautiful?" You might be able to describe the things that you think make it beautiful; but, I might find the painting horrid and all the things you describe might strike me as garish or kitschy. To determine who has the correct answer: What evidence would you consider? Which variables would you eliminate? How do you make it falsifiable and repeatable? I think we could forumulate a scientific theory as to predict what JoeMourge (and maybe even a lot of other people who have similar tastes to JoeMourge) will likely find beautiful. But we can't define beauty universally like we can, say, the speed of light or the structure of a hydrogen atom.

 

[xjx388]

No, armed revolution and compromise to slave owners gave you the US of A.

That was a pragmatic set of actions.

That were sparked by ideas.

 

[theprestige]

No, armed revolution and compromise to slave owners gave you the US of A.

That was a pragmatic set of actions.

Pragmatic according to some subjective value system. Thus, philosophy. Why do you have such an overwhelming hate-on for thinking seriously about questions science can't answer?

 

[xjx388]

Science isn't a thinking. It's a methodology.

To structure thinking.

 

[theprestige]

The philosophical premise that there is no such thing as philosophy, only blind emotion and scientific research, is kind of amusing.

 

[Myriad]

I think the main reason why philosophy can be so denigrated in the present day is that people don't often find themselves faced with truly difficult decisions.

You've inherited your deceased father's farm, along with his slave. Your father expressed a wish that the slave be freed upon his death, but his will doesn't state such, and running the farm without the slave would be a significant hardship for you. Freeing the slave would also anger your neighbors, straining your relationships within your community.

You're eking out a living for yourself and your family working on the docks. You have the opportunity to provide a better life for your family by joining a whaling crew instead. But there's at least a 1 in 4 chance you'd never make it back, leaving them destitute.

You've been challenged to a duel of honor, pistols at dawn. If you accept, though everyone in your circle will respect that decision regardless of the outcome, you'll of course risk being crippled or killed, and also risk being the cause of another man's death. If you back down, you'll be regarded as a coward, and lose respect and standing in the community, which will adversely affect your business or political ambitions.

None of these are difficult scenarios to deal with today. Slavery is wrong, jobs aren't supposed to be so risky, and duels are foolish and illegal. Says who? Says our culture. The cultures in which the examples are set would give different answers.

So, do you need philosophy to make such decisions? No. You can instead be a passive consumer of the culture (or subculture) you find yourself in. If your culture says a real man defends his honor at all costs, then you go out and blast away. No fancy thinking needed.

If, however, you want to criticize or change culture, and want to do so on some basis other than your own arbitrary opinion, you have to practice philosophy. That doesn't necessarily mean originating new philosophical principles; applying an informed preference for some previously established philosophical system, based on knowledge of that system and the available alternatives and what cultures those systems have influenced, will suffice.

The relation between philosophy and culture is similar to that between science and technology. Almost no one needs to do science to live their lives today; you can be, and the vast majority of people are, passive consumers of technology instead.

 

[Lithrael]

So is philosophy mostly a method of exploring and/or backing up a position with effective points of debate and a thoroughly considered argument?

 

[The Man]

(2) He also suggests that philosophy might help make sense of QM. This is the part that I believe might make for interesting discussion, should those whose familiarity with QM goes beyond just casual general reading like to step in. I mean, "shut up and calculate" seems like a very unsatisfactory approach, generally speaking; but firstly, is there actually any way out of this unsatisfactory approach at all, that is, is it even possible to actually interpret the math of QM in terms of "reality"; and secondly, is Philosophy actually somehow uniquely equipped to do that? (I guess if someone claims that it does, then they'll need to demonstrate how exactly it does that. This article claims it does, but does not actually demonstrate how.)

I’ll try to keep this short, focusing on the salient points and leaving the detailed explanation to the papers and article cited. As shown in the table of interpretations of quantum mechanics linked recently. One of the differences between interpretations is the “Ontic wave-function”. Whether the quantum wave function is considered real or just a representation of our knowledge (or lack thereof) of the system or constituents of that system. The consideration that the wave function can be real actually dates back to Schrödinger’s work formulizing his equation. As discussed in the paper below

"Quantum Mechanics: Keeping It Real?"

Craig Callender

July 23, 2020

About the author
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Callender

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17641/1/keeping_it_real.pdf

From section “3 Discussion”.

We can contemplate a stronger interpretation, one that Schrödinger probably initially entertained. So far I have said nothing about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. An interpretation is a mapping between the representation and the world. In the context of quantum mechanics, it’s common to refer to the ontology of a theory as a beable. The question then arises as to what the beables of quantum mechanics are. Do they include the wavefunction? More–such as GRW mass density or Bohmian particles? And if the wavefunction, we now see that we have a new option – adopting the position that only the real part of the wavefunction is a beable. Call this Re(ψ) Realism. According to Re(ψ) Realism, the real-valued wave represents what is real.

I think it’s plausible that Schrödinger was a Re(ψ) Realist, at least in June 1926. As has been chronicled many times elsewhere, we know that Schrödinger held that his wave equation described a genuine field in the world. He did not share Heisenberg’s positivist inclinations about ontology. He also felt that the use of imaginary numbers in quantum theory would turn out to be understood in the way in which he was familiar classically, namely, as dispensable. But note also that classically one never regards the imaginary parts of complex representations as representing the ontology. It’s not just that classical mechanics associates experimental outcomes with the real parts of complex representations (if used), it also associates the ontology of particles or fields with the real parts. The complex representation, for Schrödinger, represented a real field described by the real part of the wavefunction and its time derivative.

I’m not advocating such a position here. I note, however, that it may be attractive to some even today. Advancing the so-called “multi-field” interpretation of the wavefunction, Romano 2020 opts for path B above in part because the two fields it posits are real-valued. The real-valuedness makes it easier, he thinks, to understand how to relate these two real fields to measurement outcomes. Path C arguably provides the same benefit but in a more parsimonious manner, positing one real-valued field as opposed to two. A similar benefit may appear in attempts to “nominalize” quantum theory, such as Chen 2018. Something like path C also appears in the reduced phase space formulation of Schrödinger theory and may be helpful in considering possible beables for Bohmian field theory (Struyve 2010).

So for Schrödinger it was the math that was the interpretation of the wave function as being real. Writing to Max Planck after the first introduction of his time dependent wave equation.

By the way, during the last few days another heavy stone has been rolled away from my heart....I had considerable anxiety over it...But it all resolved itself with unheard of simplicity and unheard of beauty; it all came out exactly as one would have it, quite straightforwardly, quite by itself and without forcing.
(Przibram 1967, 16)

That equation noted by him to be ""evidently the uniform and general equation for the field scalar ψ” (Schrödinger 2020, 163)"

As well as being that...

It meets all of his desiderata: it is real-valued, general, and time-dependent.3 It is real in that both ψ is a real-valued function and in that equation (1) has no imaginary components to it.

Below is another paper explaining why complex numbers are so usefully in quantum mechanics. Though section B should be taken with a grain of salt since ”I” (the square root of -1) in Schrödinger’s is just a matter of the form of that particular representation of the equation as the paper above shows.

The paper below makes use of Bra–ket notation without really explaining it and only mentioning the ket portion in passing. This article will explain it and the usage in quantum mechanics in more detail and may help to explain some other things.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra–ket_notation#Bras_and_kets_as_row_and_column_vectors

“Why are complex numbers needed in quantum mechanics? Some answers for the introductory level”

Ricardo Karam∗



https://www.ind.ku.dk/english/research/didactics-of-physics/Karam_AJP_Complex_numbers_in_QM.pdf

About the author

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aT4IsroAAAAJ&hl=en


Finally a thesis paper that goes into more detail about an ontological (real) and epistemological (our knowledge only) interpretations of the wave function.

“On the interpretation of the quantum wave function”
Master’s thesis Physics and Astronomy Radboud University Nijmegen

Han van der Pluijm

August 26, 2016

Sorry, unable to locate any information on the author

Also this only downloads the PDF so don't click on it if you don't want to down load the PDF.

https://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/913395/thesis_han_van_der_pluijm_25_8_16.pdf


From the “Conclusion and discussion”.

What do ontological, ψ-epistemic models say about quantum mechanics, especially Spekkens’ toy theory?

The fact that the toy theory resembles a great deal of quantum phenomenology could be a hint that quantum states should be interpreted epistemically. It still is a toy theory, but it might pave the way for another ψ-epistemic theory that does actually fulfils all our demands. The importance of the ‘Knowledge balance principle’ on which the theory is built seems also interesting. Perhaps there is some general principle that restricts our knowledge of the physical world. Of course we immediately think about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that does seem like the principle used in Spekkens’ theory. But unlike the knowledge balance principle, the uncertainty principle has a physical status.

How should we interpret the PBR no-go theorem?

The PBR theorem has to be seen as a restriction on ontological models. The conclusion that PBR derive from it is not the only way to deal with the theorem. Instead of abandoning the ψ-epistemic assumption one might abandon the preparation independence assumption. In fact this assumption is the one on which PBR received the most criticism[13]. A third and last remedy to deal with the PBR theorem is to abandon realism, but most physicists will not consider this as a serious option.

The paper mentions and pictures states represented on a Bloch sphere. More detail below and the article brings up some points that may be relevant if we talk about mixed quantum states (like a qubit).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere

So is the quantum wave function real or not? It’s been a fundamental ontological question for almost 100 years and still is.

Even more ghostly in the realm of quantum realism are virtual particles. Distinguished from ‘real’ particles (though both are still just excitations of the quantum fields) by the fact that we can’t directly detect them and that they need not adhere to the energy to mass and momentum relation. Yet, they still have observable effects, even at our macro scale. I can go into more detail on them later if anyone wants but fundamentally it comes down to the same question as with the wave function. Are they physically existent, just within the confines of the uncertainty principle for virtual particles, or simply extremely useful mathematical tools and representations?

 

[The Man]

I said stop taking the piss. Stop acting as if you don't know how language works.

The pissing and pretense remain entirely yours. So still no assertion as to what different definitions of exist you thought were being equivocated.

You really know how to focus on the topic of the thread, don't you?

If you feel your claim was off topic then report it, otherwise support it.

So still no support for this claim...

Again, you are confusing "logic" as the discipline of analysing stuff and "logic" as the stuff it's being analysed against, which is what I was discussing. This is not the first time I have to correct you on this.

Your claim was directly related to the discussion, and you couldn't support it. As for what you seem to think is really important for me to "support", stop playing "person with anterograde amnesia". It's not very credible. You seem to think you're very clever in aping my own request for support for your claim, but I assure you, there's nothing clever about it.

As were yours and you still seem unable or just unwilling to support either one. In fact the equivocation you have yet to cite was, the plating with words as you put it originally, the only reason you gave for asserting the claim was not supported.

ETA: Since the amnesia is evidently simply yours as well, here is a memory aid.

I also gave you an example of a macro world self-contradiction. Reflected waves out of phase canceling themselves. The waveform, in the media, must exist to cancel itself yet doesn't exist because it cancels itself. You can demonstrate this for yourself with some simple apparatus.

Again, this is only a contradiction because you're playing with words.

Nope, its a contradiction because the particle motions oppose each other. Now one could say that it is an example of a contradiction (A & ~A) that results in the original waveform being false (doesn't exist) as the energy of the original waveform would mostly be dissipated as heat. Though the philosophical term for something that fails reach a state of existence would be 'fails to obtain'. As in 'fails to obtain a state of existence'. Conversely 'obtain' would be the assertion of something that does reach a state of existence.

How is that a logical contradiction? This is exactly like the discussion on positronium in the other thread. Sure, once two particles annihilate each other they no longer exist, and they exist just prior. There is no moment at which they both exist and don't exist. There's no contradiction.

No it is not like the annihilation of electrons and positions. In the annihilation of of electrons and positions, much as you state, they meet, annihilate and that's it. For reflective destructive interference it is continuous, as long as the source is generating, the particle motions act against each other. The particles must always be in such motion just to be able to act against each other. Also, you can vary the phase between the original and reflected wave, changing the interference. Showing that both those particle motions do still exist.

So where's your contradiction? Are you ever going to get there?

Again that the wave motions exist and don’t exist.

You don't seem to understand the concept of demonstration. I'm not interested in what you claim the problem is. I want you to explain it.

What I claim the problem is? What did I claim was even a problem? I did explain it, because you asked, and then you asked about particle annihilation, so I explained that as well and how they differ. Then you asked for the contradiction, again, which I gave before that you had asked me to explain before. At this point it’s gone full circle so you can just loop around yourself or ask something new. As for demonstrations, as I told you, you can demonstrate it for yourself with some simple equipment. For multispectral waves (waves or sounds of more than just one specific tone of frequency) it is the basis , and problem in recording and live (or playback) presentation, of comb filtering.

 

[LarryS]

Those are necessarily there. There is no such thing as an objective value, or an objective right or wrong.

^^stated as such is opinion . . . if you developed an argument to support this claim, that would be philosophy. Not sure if science can have anything to say re this claim.

 

[Roboramma]

And yet again how does "philosophical" thinking help us in those categories?

Where are all these political and ethical and moral and "subjective" and so forth and so forth answers philosophy has given us?

And I mean things that are actually answers, not yet another variation on "Well we're talking about it...."

Rawls Theory of Justice is a pretty good answer to the question: What is justice and what is it's role in society.

 

[The Man]

^^stated as such is opinion . . . if you developed an argument to support this claim, that would be philosophy. Not sure if science can have anything to say re this claim.

While you and Belz... are both basically correct, in your own ways, in that a fundamental objective determination of right or wrong is beyond the scope of science. Since you would have to make philosophical assumptions to support it, as I recall that was Kant’s (from what little I know, so anyone correct me if I’m wrong) main objection to normative statements (statements about what should be) vs descriptive statements (statements about what simply is). The former is lacking any direct support, while the latter, if actually descriptive, inherently has that. This is social science, the morality and values an existent society holds or historical society had held (slavery given as an example already here) . Take cannibalism, abhorrent to us, well at least most of us, but a ritual way of life for some historical cultures (not sure if any actual exist these days)

A bit of Google-fu and

The Korowai have been reported to practice ritual cannibalism up to the present day. Anthropologists suspect that cannibalism is no longer practiced by the Korowai clans that have had frequent contact with outsiders.[19][20] Recent reports suggest that certain clans have been coaxed into encouraging tourism by perpetuating the myth that cannibalism is still an active practice

another questionable revelation by me.


So science can objectively help or inform about where things are in a current or have been in a historical society. Heck, it may even have something to say about, empirically, how social changes have been or are currently being made. A nice role reversal there, however, with people (subjectively), particularly en masse, involved, objectivity can often go right out the window. A condition our current sociological climate empirically demonstrates.

 

[Belz...]

That were sparked by ideas.

Everything is sparked by thought. That doesn't mean anything.

We're back to "philosophy is everything". I told you we would be.

To structure thinking.

No. To get actual answers.

 

[Belz...]

Pragmatic according to some subjective value system. Thus, philosophy.

Ah, there's yet another definition of philosophy! Convenient!

Why do you have such an overwhelming hate-on for thinking seriously about questions science can't answer?

I think you have me confused with another poster. The only reason why science can't answer these questions is because the answer is necessarily subjective or arbitrary. The problem is that this is also an issue for every other method as well.

 

[Belz...]

The pissing and pretense remain entirely yours.

"I know you are, but what am I?" Very mature.

If you feel your claim was off topic then report it, otherwise support it.

"I will continue to troll you until you make me stop!" is also very mature.

So still no support for this claim...

You seem to believe you've "got" me somehow with this. The fact of the matter is that I've made the distinction clear before in our discussion, and rather than understand the distinction, you've focusing on "oh, go through the thread for me and find me the last time you said it". It's clear that it's a tactic designed to avoid the actual discussion, since you are very much aware of how weak your position is. Unfortunately for you I won't bite, so you can go on doing that as long as you want, but it won't change the facts.

As were yours and you still seem unable or just unwilling to support either one.

"I refuse to acknowledge what you tell me and then demand that you show that you told me so I can ignore it again" is not equivalent to "you've made a claim pertaining to the topic and refuse to support it." You're trying real hard to create an equivalence between the two "claims" but the "lack of support" for either claim is not equal at all.

ETA: Since the amnesia is evidently simply yours as well, here is a memory aid.

I remember all of that. The reason why you think I didn't (aside from the fact that you are again and transparently trying to turn my accusations on me out of frustration) is that you think there's an actual demonstration and answer to my question in there, when if fact there is none. "It's a contradiction!" is not a demonstration of a contradiction. It is, in fact, the claim you're yet to support.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Be super annoying until people get frustrated with you, then claim their frustration means you are correct" must be yet another valid philosophy.

And functionally identical to trolling, a trend I'm seeing more and more of.

 

[xjx388]

Everything is sparked by thought. That doesn't mean anything.

I think it does mean something. Namely, that you can't apply scientific methodology (scientific thinking) to decide when people should rebel against their current government/opressors.

We're back to "philosophy is everything". I told you we would be.

I have never said philosophy is everything. Philosophy is not science and can't give us objective answers like: the speed of light, the orbits of the planets, what is dark matter, etc etc.

To turn your statement around: We're back to "thinking is everything." I mean, that's trivially true; human thought drives everything we do. My argument is that I think it's useful to deliniate what "kind" of thought we are doing when we seek to answer any particular question. If we want to know what the weather will be like tomorrow, we think scientifically and come up with theories, predictions, tests, observations, revisions to the theory, rinse and repeat. If we want to know how drug use should be dealt with in our society, we try to convince each other with philosophical thinking: arguments about subjective things like rights, morals, ethics, etc.

No. To get actual answers.

The Constitution is an actual answer. Professional ethical codes are actual answers. You own personal moral code is an actual answer.

 

[Belz...]

I think it does mean something. Namely, that you can't apply scientific methodology (scientific thinking) to decide when people should rebel against their current government/opressors.

Well now that's a completely different discussion, and an interesting way to dodge my point.

But sure, science can't answer moral questions directly. So what? Philosophy can only answer moral questions personally. It's only useful as much as science +1 person.

I have never said philosophy is everything.

I've addressed this already. It doesn't matter what you claim if you act in a way that belies that claim.

To turn your statement around: We're back to "thinking is everything."

That's not the win you think it is. Of course all thinking is thinking. By definition.

My argument is that I think it's useful to deliniate what "kind" of thought we are doing when we seek to answer any particular question.

Except that whenever we try to pin down the "kind" of thought in question, it evaporates and becomes nondescripe again, hence my comment about philosophy being everything. Of course it's not everything in real life, but it's everything in discussions like this, because if you didn't make it everything its lack of usefulness would be too apparent.

The Constitution is an actual answer.

No it isn't. It's a set of arbitrary laws made because those who wrote them agreed with them. What do you think it's an answer to?