Does anything exist?

[Roboramma]

Who's faulted philosophy for that? Don't assume I'm saying anything else but what I write.



Well, that's not a question, but yes that's the next step. What I'm challenging is the idea that philosophy is somehow better than the alternatives at finding answers or solutions that are beyond science's usual scope.



Actually it's trivial.

Figuring out the implications of your axioms is trivial? Wow. I'm sorry Belz, but that's just ignorant. Again, look at mathematics as an example. Given the integers, the distribution of the primes is already specified. But what is that distribution? Figuring out that distribution isn't trivial, but it follows directly from the axioms.

Only in the broadest, most useless sense. Mathematics has fixed axioms, if you will. It can't operate under the premise that 2 equals 3. Maths aren't some sort of ideology. It's a language that represents how raw numbers work. I'll bet you money that every alien species in the universe that has a civilisation is using the exact same mathematics, albeit with different symbols. You're including maths in a category where they don't belong.

Sorry, but we have to choose our axioms in mathematics just as much as philosophy. And it's not as though there are no controversies in mathematics over those choices.
That doesn't mean that some sets are of axioms aren't better or more useful than others. I agree that aliens will probably have a very similar system of mathematics to us.

No, what you're not getting is that even religion does that. Everything does that. It's not a unique feature of philosophy.

I didn't suggest it was. I only suggested that there's a rigorous way or reasoning from your axioms once you've got them, and we define some sets of subjects and their axioms as the domain of philosophy. Anyone is free to reason about those topics, but the field of philosophy tries to apply a higher standard of rigor to that topic.

That is nonsensical. The definition of parallel is that they never meet. That's pseudo-philosophical nonsense, not math.

Cool, tell that to everyone who does non-euclidean geometry. You've basically made my point for me.

It's a good thing that some mathematicians were willing to question their axioms, or Einstein would have had a much harder time.

 

[The Man]

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



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

Wait, so your response to the assertion that the pissing and pretense are entirely yours is simply to make up some pissy quotations and just pretend that they are mine?

Why, how demonstrably concessive of you.

Whatever argument you are evidently having with simply someone in your head, is of no concern or interest to me.

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.

Once again, I don’t give a crap what you think I think or "seem to believe". If simply asking you to support your claims is, even just potentially, some kind of ‘gotcha’. Then I can only recommend that you endeavor to make better claims that you are willing, or even just able, to actually support. If you had made your asserted “distinction” before then it should be no encumbrance to show where. Heck, that you would do that, if I showed the interpretation again, was another claim you made that you won’t or just can’t support.

Then, show where.

Sure thing, as soon as you show me those "interpretations" you keep babbling about.

"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.

Once again, since the opening quote in this paragraph is just another pretense by you, both that, the pissing it imbues as well as the equivocation between your fantasy quotations, remain, still, entirely yours.

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.

What it shows is that I can, do and did support that claim. I even addressed your assertion that it was like matter-anti-matter annihilation. Your only remaining objections were an assertion of playing with words that you have later asserted might be some kind of equivocation, that you have yet to actually define. As well as the later assertion that “Opposition is not a contradiction”. Since no one made such a claim, that simply opposition constituted contradiction, that objection remains without any merit as well. As such, the interpretation of reflective self-cancelation being an example of a physical contradiction stands.

 

[The Man]

Figuring out the implications of your axioms is trivial? Wow. I'm sorry Belz, but that's just ignorant. Again, look at mathematics as an example. Given the integers, the distribution of the primes is already specified. But what is that distribution? Figuring out that distribution isn't trivial, but it follows directly from the axioms.





Sorry, but we have to choose our axioms in mathematics just as much as philosophy. And it's not as though there are no controversies in mathematics over those choices.
That doesn't mean that some sets are of axioms aren't better or more useful than others. I agree that aliens will probably have a very similar system of mathematics to us.



I didn't suggest it was. I only suggested that there's a rigorous way or reasoning from your axioms once you've got them, and we define some sets of subjects and their axioms as the domain of philosophy. Anyone is free to reason about those topics, but the field of philosophy tries to apply a higher standard of rigor to that topic.



Cool, tell that to everyone who does non-euclidean geometry. You've basically made my point for me.

It's a good thing that some mathematicians were willing to question their axioms, or Einstein would have had a much harder time.

Exactly Roboramma, how would the failure of such axioms appear to us when we try to force things to conform within them? Basically as noise , nonsense, the incompatibility of our theories to each other and the incompatibility of our theories and other assumptions to the results of experiments and observations. All of this we currently do find, it is far easier to construct an experiment or make an observation that results in what we would consider to be nonsense, then one that we would not. Similarly, it is difficult to construct accurate information processing machines, active error correction is a necessary element to such construction. In finding that, we then reconstruct them till they meet our expectations.

Historically, and even mathematically, such aspects have been simply discarded. For example solutions to the Maxwell field equations have both forward time (retarded) and backwards time (advanced) components. The advanced solutions are generally just discarded as being ‘unphysical’. However, since time asymmetry is simply an assumption based on our presumptions and perceptions some physicists and a particular QM interpretation question whether that need be the case. The result is what is called Feynman wheeler absorber theory and the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, both time symmetrical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory

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



A similar thing happened with negative energy solutions to the mass, momentum and energy relation. As E²= M² + P². The total energy being the root of a square, meaning both positive and negative numbers are also solutions for E, given the same M and P. Generally dismissed until the Klein–Gordon equation (a relativistic extension of the Schrödinger equation) ended up with negative energy solutions and negative probability (for electron spin). In the formulation of his relativistic equation, the Dirac equation, Dirac considered those negative energy states to be states below the ground state already filled with negative energy matter (anti-matter) and thus excluded from consideration in most calculation by the Pauli exclusion principle (for particles with half-integer spin). This was known as the Dirac sea and the introduction of the consideration of antimatter. While antimatter was eventually isolated (1932 and found having positive energy) Dirac’s sea and the negative energy solutions were still problematic. Until about 1947 with the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation of antimatter for those negative energy states. That a negative energy positron can just be considered a positive energy electron traveling backwards in time. This is the basis of virtual particles that can have negative energy or almost any energy (within the confines of uncertainty). while what are considered ‘real’ particles (both matter and anti-matter) have positive energy and obey the E to mass and momentum relation. The more a virtual particle deviates from the E to Mass and momentum relation the shorter range it has. So while real photons have infinite range, virtual photons do not, accounting for near field and nonradiative EM interactions. You will also note that time symmetry is a part of the above interpretation. Both the Klein–Gordon equation and the Dirac equation are considered indispensable parts of QFT for bosonic fields (integer spin particles) and a fermionic fields (half-integer spin particles) respectively.

 

[The Man]

That's the part you either don't understand or pretend not to. It doesn't answer those questions. There is no method or subset of philosophy that will give you objective answers. At best you have subjectively-pleasing answers that you can make a good argument for. But they stop at you.



Yeah, because other words you've written circle right back to saying the opposite.



Only because their feelings aligned with those principles. Had they had the discussion 20 years later or earlier they would've come up with something different. So "philosophy" sounds remarkably like "I like this and I will rationalise it."

Actually, there is no requirement that the answers you get will be "subjectively pleasing" to you or just "stop at you". Again depending on the preconditions you set and adhere to for the examination you could quite conceivably come to some determination that you don't agree with at all and that others do. This can help expose your own personal biases and the reasons for them, that you might not be readily able to explore otherwise. Also it helps give a perspective on positions you don't hold that may change your thinking or biases or help to convince others to change theirs.

 

[Thermal]

That's the part you either don't understand or pretend not to. It doesn't answer those questions. There is no method or subset of philosophy that will give you objective answers. At best you have subjectively-pleasing answers that you can make a good argument for. But they stop at you.

Or quite frequently, a collective you, which, depending on how large the collective is, may be for all intents and purposes objective.

 

[Belz...]

Well neither of us is being very precise here, are we?

I've been very precise. Philosophiles do not like precision at all.

 

[Belz...]

Figuring out the implications of your axioms is trivial? Wow. I'm sorry Belz, but that's just ignorant.

No, it's actually true.

Again, look at mathematics as an example. Given the integers, the distribution of the primes is already specified. But what is that distribution? Figuring out that distribution isn't trivial, but it follows directly from the axioms.

I think we're not using the same definition of "trivial".

Sorry, but we have to choose our axioms in mathematics just as much as philosophy.

Oh, really? Show me mathematics that operate with something that isn't 1+1=2. I mean, let'smake sure we mean the same thing when we're using the word "axiom". What math operates with different axioms, and which are they?

Cool, tell that to everyone who does non-euclidean geometry.

Good luck with the alternatives.

It's a good thing that some mathematicians were willing to question their axioms, or Einstein would have had a much harder time.

Einstein didn't question the axioms of mathematics. He used math as it's always used but the axiom he questioned was of a different nature.

 

[Belz...]

Wait, so your response to the assertion that the pissing and pretense are entirely yours is simply to make up some pissy quotations and just pretend that they are mine?

Quotations? Have you never heard of that expression? Kids use it all the time. I don't believe for a second that you didn't know that and that you didn't understand why I used it. At this point you are desperate to "win" any aspect of the discussion.

if I showed the interpretation again

I've already addressed those.

Once again, since the opening quote in this paragraph is just another pretense by you, both that, the pissing it imbues as well as the equivocation between your fantasy quotations, remain, still, entirely yours.

And again, I refuse to believe that your competence with language is so abysmal. Now your entire shtick is "no, you!". It's not very impressive.

What it shows is that I can, do and did support that claim.

Where? I'm not sure you know what "support" means.

 

[Belz...]

Or quite frequently, a collective you, which, depending on how large the collective is, may be for all intents and purposes objective.

No, no, no. Don't try to redefine "objective" to mean anything but what it actually means. I think we've had quite enough of that here.

What you're talking about is still subjective even if every human on the planet agrees.

 

[xjx388]

I've been very precise. Philosophiles do not like precision at all.

Really?

Give me your precise definition of “good.”

I’ll wait right here.

 

[xjx388]

No, no, no. Don't try to redefine "objective" to mean anything but what it actually means. I think we've had quite enough of that here.

What you're talking about is still subjective even if every human on the planet agrees.

Sure.

But if every human agrees that something is true (happiness is “good” for example) how would you convince others that they are wrong? I submit that any such argument would be philosophical rather than scientific. I mean: How are you defining “happiness.”?” The concept does not lend itself to objective definition.

 

[Belz...]

Really?

Give me your precise definition of “good.”

Desirable, better than average, for example. I of course don't believe for an instant that you were ever confused by the word, but while we're playing games, we might as well score points, right?

But if every human agrees that something is true (happiness is “good” for example) how would you convince others that they are wrong?

That has nothing to do with whether it's objective. You guys keep moving from one argument to the next.

 

[The Man]

Quotations? Have you never heard of that expression? Kids use it all the time. I don't believe for a second that you didn't know that and that you didn't understand why I used it. At this point you are desperate to "win" any aspect of the discussion.

Well, they were your own quotations, thus simply your own lack of maturity, own it all for all I care. It is just your own internal dialogue. As for external dialogue, still no support for your claim of what definitions you thought were being equivocated.

I've already addressed those.

I’ve already redressed your addressing of those. So still no support for either 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.

or this one...

Then, show where.

Sure thing, as soon as you show me those "interpretations" you keep babbling about.

And again, I refuse to believe that your competence with language is so abysmal. Now your entire shtick is "no, you!". It's not very impressive.

I’m not the one unable or simply unwilling to support their claims.

Where? I'm not sure you know what "support" means.

Again, here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13558534&postcount=1831

Now that we've come full circle again, I'll simply link back to that post until you support your claims or come up with some relevant criticisms you are able or just willing to support.

 

[Belz...]

Well, they were your own quotations, thus simply your own lack of maturity, own it all for all I care.

You really are incapable of using any rhetoric except "no, you" are you? Did you not learn anything about how to debate since you were eight?

I'll simply link back to that post

Of course you will. As soon as I started picking apart your claims, you decided to make it about me, focusing on childish games, including projection, in order to distract from the conversation. What's sadder is you know full well that the distraction isn't working, but you're so immature that you have to keep going because you're committed to not admitting to being wrong. I don't expect you to change your act; it's all you have to avoid getting back to the point, where you're doing pretty badly.


Any time you want to demonstrate where the contradiction actually is, feel free.

 

[Chanakya]

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”.



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.



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...





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”.



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?

Thanks for the very detailed post, The Man. I appreciate the digging up you must have done to get to this. I have to say, though, that I'm afraid this is kind of beyond me. I'd mentioned people fully conversant with QM sussing out the role of philosophy in QM, but I'd envisioned myself more as fly-on-wall than participant!

I suppose I could attempt the reading-through-moving-lips thing, but rather than that, could you, like, break it up for me? That is, sure, QM has lots of weird things happening, but here's the part we were essentially at: What part of all of this is uniquely assisted by a detailed knowledge of philosophy?

 

[xjx388]

Desirable, better than average, for example. I of course don't believe for an instant that you were ever confused by the word, but while we're playing games, we might as well score points, right?

Desirable to who? Average of what?

You can pull out a dictionary and read what it means. We may even agree on which things are good and what things are bad. But I know we don't agree on everything. Politically for example.

That has nothing to do with whether it's objective. You guys keep moving from one argument to the next.

It's all the same argument, really. If something is objective, we can think about it scientifically. If something is subjective, we can think about it philosophically. Like we do every day on this forum, for example, in the science section and the politics section.

 

[Thermal]

No, no, no. Don't try to redefine "objective" to mean anything but what it actually means. I think we've had quite enough of that here.

What you're talking about is still subjective even if every human on the planet agrees.

Hm? No one is redefining anything. You can say a number is for all intents and purposes zero, while acknowledging that it is not zero. Posters here often say they are 100% sure of something or other, which they absolutely know is absolutely not true.

My point is that Philosophy need not stop at the individual you, as you claimed. It can represent wider collective values.

 

[Belz...]

Desirable to who? Average of what?

You asked me to define the word. I did. Now you're asking me to give you specific examples for a specific person in a specific situation? What's even the point of this, since we were discussing axioms and you ran away from the discussion when it became inconvenient switched to discussing defining "good" for reasons unknown.

If something is objective, we can think about it scientifically. If something is subjective, we can think about it philosophically.

If something is objective, we can think about it philosophically. If something is subjective, we can think about it scientifically.

So we're back to square one: what exactly is the point of philosophy, aside from the entertainment value? How does it work? What kind of answers does it give us, and are they reliable? Etc.

 

[Belz...]

My point is that Philosophy need not stop at the individual you, as you claimed. It can represent wider collective values.

You misunderstand my point because you added more stuff to it than was written. That it stops at you doesn't mean you can't agree with someone else. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what "objective" and "subjective" mean.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm so done with "subjective." Whatever meaning it might have once had, it's become yet another functional way for people to say "I want to be wrong, without calling it wrong."