Does anything exist?

[theprestige]

This has to be a joke. No two people in this thread defending philosophy has said the same thing. They're all over the place. Just a few minutes back I complained about two contradictory explanation of the role of logic in philosophy. It's one of a dozen such issues with the definitions and explanation given in this thread, to say nothing about the lack of specifics or demonstrations of claims.

And yet most of us are getting along just fine. As far as disputes raised about each other's concepts of philosophy, most of use don't seem to have any. You and Joe are the outliers.

Just because you generally agree with my 'opponents' here doesn't make their disparate claims and utterances somehow right on average.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying there's a consensus being reached by a bunch of us that we're all more or less in the same ballpark and we all basically understand and agree with each other. You explicitly don't want to be a part of that consensus. That's not a problem any of us can solve for you. At this point, you'd be better off starting your own thread about your own view of what philosophy is and what it's good for.

 

[Belz...]

And yet most of us are getting along just fine.

Yeah, like I get along with Christians regularily because we don't directly get into a conversation about god.

You and Joe are the outliers.

Because everybody else gave up.

I'm saying there's a consensus being reached by a bunch of us that we're all more or less in the same ballpark and we all basically understand and agree with each other. You explicitly don't want to be a part of that consensus.

Yeah Christians have a consensus about Jesus, too. Doesn't mean squat, and I definitely don't want to be part of that consensus, either. I only want them to demonstrate their claims for me. Somehow Christians are less slippery than the other posters in this thread. Well, four posters.

 

[theprestige]

dup

 

[The Man]

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?

No problem, about the post. Unfortunately, again not being a particular fan of philosophy, it is difficult for me to say exactly. Also as noted before philosophy and philosophy of science have been branching off into more dedicated subfields. Not to mention physicists themselves publishing articles in philosophical journals or articles directly related to the philosophy of science.

Although coming at the question from a different direction...

"The Influence of Quantum Physics on Philosophy"

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/18348/1/InfluenceQPonPhilosophy-FAMuller2020.pdf

This paper might give some idea of what I talking about and how, particularly for quantum mechanics, the roles kind of get mashed together.

Form section "2. Influence of Philosophy of Physics

Then there are physicists and mathematical physicists who publish, occasionally or frequently, in the field of philosophy of physics, such as Sean Carroll, Lucien Hardy, Adrian Kent, Klaas Landsman, Tony Leggett, Roger Penrose, Carlo Rovelli, Henry Stapp, Tony Sudberry, Yogi Aharonov and Lev Vaidman.

The grandfathers published their papers mostly in philosophy of science journals, e.g. Philosophy of Science and The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, in general philosophy journals, such as Synthese, Journal of Philosophy, and Erkenntnis, and in conference volumes, e.g. the marvellous Minnesota series in philosophy of science. Foundations of Physics and the short-lived Physics Essays published philosophy of physics papers. In 1995, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics was born, as an off-spring of Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Conferences, workshops and PhD theses devoted to philosophy of physics became routine. During the past decades, summer schools devoted to philosophy of physics have been organised. Philosophy of physics seems here to stay. As happens with a burgeoning branch in academia, branching has set in. We can discern roughly four sub-branches of philosophy of physics:

? Quantum Physics (quantum mechanics, quantum field theory).
? Spacetime and Cosmology (classical mechanics, the theories of relativity).
? Statistical Physics and Thermodynamics.
? Quantum Gravity and String Theory.

The grandfathers as well as the next generation were mainly interested in the first two sub-branches. The last two arose later, in the order mentioned above. The attention to speculative physics, e.g. quantum gravity and string theory, is the most recently grown subbranch. Yet still today, as a glance at the Pittsburgh Archive for the Philosophy of Science suggests, quantum physics attracts by far the most philosophical attention. On 18 July 2020, the Pittsburgh Archive held 2882 philosophy of physics items, categorised as follows:

1. Quantum Theories: 1673 = 1301 (Quantum Mechanics) + 372 (Quantum Field Theory).
2. Relativity Theory: 756.
3. Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics: 303.
4. Fields and Particles: 289.
5. Classical Physics: 359.
6. Symmetry and Invariance: 358.
7. Cosmology: 257.
8. Quantum Gravity: 159.
9. Condensed Matter: 50.
10. Astrophysics: 11.

Admittedly, various papers are counted more than once: 4215 is the sum of the numbers above, not 2882. But many if not most papers classified under ‘Particles and Fields’, ‘Symmetry and Invariance’ and ‘Condensed Matter Physics’ concern quantum theories. So when correcting for these two considerations, we arguably shall still reach the conclusion that quantum theories form the biggest sub-branch of philosophy of physics (at least 60%). To assert that quantum physics has influenced philosophy of physics is a platitude, quantum physics has been and still is constitutive of philosophy of physics. To conclude: being constitutive of a growing and blossoming new branch at the tree of philosophy, how much more influential on the tree of philosophy can you get?

I have to say it's been some 35 years since I studied QFT and that was just as a hobby. I can't say I ever read a philosophy of science paper until participating in this thread. Though, my best guess would be in those interpretations of quantum mechanics as that has always been essentially philosophical. In these past 30 odd years they still haven't gone much of anywhere, from either camp. The transactional interpretation was something new but even that's decades old now. One of the reasons I lost interest, things seemed so close to that theory of everything, but then just stagnated. Heck, given that dark matter and dark energy make up about 95% of the universe as well as the recent g-2 muon experiments hinting at perhaps new physics. One could argue, on the overall scale of things, we're further back now than we thought we were then.


https://news.fnal.gov/2021/04/first...xperiment-strengthen-evidence-of-new-physics/

One can only hope that the cooperation and mixing of ideas and publications between philosophers of physics and physicists can help bring us back to where we thought we were before






I had come across this before which is relevant to the discussion here. I've meant to post it but never found the time.


Potentiality and Contradiction in Quantum Mechanics

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10726/1/Paper_-_Contradiction_and_potentiality.pdf

So, the idea that states in a superposition are contrary rather than contradictory are compatible with a variety of interpretational moves. It is compatible with assuming only the minimal property attribution condition. The paraconsistent approach, on the other hand, introduces a further interpretational postulate, a kind of converse for the minimal condition according to which every11superposition corresponds to properties attributed simultaneously to the system (see [1]):

Paraconsistent property attribution: When in a superposition, the system does have the properties related to the vectors forming the superposition, and they are contradictory.

This move, obviously, closes some alternative interpretation which are also plausible candidates. So, it seems, this is a further advantage of dealing with superpositions as contraries: one leaves open some important issues that are still hot issues of interpretation in quantum mechanics, while the paraconsistent property attribution seems to put a priori constraints on the theory and its future developments.

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately, again not being a particular fan of philosophy (snip)

Ouch. Imagine if you were!!

 

[xjx388]

What's funny is that I'm not particularly a big fan of philosophy either. I have no use for much of what is considered classical philosophy. It can be interesting and entertaining, especially in a historical context, but ultimately so much of it is pretty dang useless.

That doesn't mean that I can't recognize it's value for the things we can't study scientifically. I just think that it has a much narrower value these days than it did in the past.

 

[Thermal]

What's funny is that I'm not particularly a big fan of philosophy either. I have no use for much of what is considered classical philosophy. It can be interesting and entertaining, especially in a historical context, but ultimately so much of it is pretty dang useless.

That doesn't mean that I can't recognize it's value for the things we can't study scientifically. I just think that it has a much narrower value these days than it did in the past.

Yup, this. I don't think any philosopher "apologetics" come from pipe smoking beard strokers. It just sounds strange to hear that it doesn't exist or has no meaning. A thread denying Ford Motor Company and insisting that cars are all the same or whatever would draw the same response.

 

[theprestige]

It takes a true contrarian to swing me around to a defense of philosophy.

 

[Belz...]

It takes a true contrarian to swing me around to a defense of philosophy.

Yes, because I couldn't possibly actually think what I post.

Meanwhile, coming from you, that accusation is amusing.

 

[theprestige]

What's funny is that I'm not particularly a big fan of philosophy either. I have no use for much of what is considered classical philosophy. It can be interesting and entertaining, especially in a historical context, but ultimately so much of it is pretty dang useless.

That doesn't mean that I can't recognize it's value for the things we can't study scientifically. I just think that it has a much narrower value these days than it did in the past.

One thing I've changed my mind about as a result of this thread is, I'm now of the opinion that "study scientifically" applies equally to philosophy and science. In fact, I think it's the exact same process of reasoning from premises. The only real difference is the nature of the premises.

"Science" is good for reasoning from premises that are considered to be universal, the same for everyone everywhere all the time. The speed of light in a vacuum. The Pauli Exclusion Principle. The behavior of electromagnetic fields. Etc.

"Philosophy" is good for reasoning from premises that are essentially individual. How much value you put on human life versus animal life. The moral legitimacy of using force in self defense. The importance of keeping promises. Etc.

But really it's all just reasoning from premises. The process and goal of science and philosophy are essentially the same, and the terms are essentially interchangeable. Whether you're trying to figure out dark matter, or trying to figure out the death penalty, your reasoning process is going to be essentially the same.

Note: I'm describing the conclusion I've reached as a result of this discussion. This description is in no way intended to try to convince the contrarians of anything. If you're a contrarian reading this and thinking "yes, but... ", save it. Unless you have something new to say, some new development or insight to share, there's no point in repeating your complaints one more time.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, because I couldn't possibly actually think what I post. : rolleyes :

Meanwhile, coming from you, that accusation is amusing.

Oh, I'm sure you actually think it. Sincere contrarianism is still contrarianism. I should know. Anyway, thanks for your part in helping to rehabilitate philosophy in my eyes. I'm just sorry I couldn't do the same for you.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I'm sure you actually think it. Sincere contrarianism is still contrarianism.

Ok so you define "contrarian" as "someone who disagrees with me". That's kind of weird, but you do you.

I'm just sorry I couldn't do the same for you.

You didn't even try. Furthermore, I've been very clear that philosophy has its uses. It's the mindlessly-broad usage of the word that I'm arguing against.

 

[The Man]

You're joking right? You're doing it right there!

Again, your rhetoric, your doing, your problem.

Like you, I'm too lazy to go back to find that post in the thread. Unlike you, I don't consider it more important than the actual topic of the thread.

First off, it is incumbent on no one to support your claims for you.

Second, much like your rhetoric isn't mine simply because you imagine it to be, your laziness also is not mine. I gave you the interpretations you asked for, it remains "Your turn" to provide the information you said you would.

Third, as already noted before, if you feel your claim was not in keeping with the actual topic of the thread, then you can report it, provided you can find it.

Fourth, I have no problem with you simply asserting that you can't find it, don't want to bother finding it and/or perhaps never posted it and simply restating it as best you can.

Nope. None of that explains in what way it's a contradiction. I've already addressed all of that, so you'll have to come up with new words rather than links to earlier posts, I'm afraid.

I've already addressed those criticisms, which were that it is like particle antihalation, I've explained why it is specifically not like that. That opposition is not contraction, no one claimed simply opposition constituted contradiction. That there was playing with words and equivocation between definitions, which you have yet to actually specify. So once again, your turn, support your claims or come up with some relevant criticisms you are able or just willing to actually support.

 

[The Man]

Ouch. Imagine if you were!!

I expect I'd be more informed about it as I am with most things that interest me.

 

[The Man]

One thing I've changed my mind about as a result of this thread is, I'm now of the opinion that "study scientifically" applies equally to philosophy and science. In fact, I think it's the exact same process of reasoning from premises. The only real difference is the nature of the premises.

"Science" is good for reasoning from premises that are considered to be universal, the same for everyone everywhere all the time. The speed of light in a vacuum. The Pauli Exclusion Principle. The behavior of electromagnetic fields. Etc.

"Philosophy" is good for reasoning from premises that are essentially individual. How much value you put on human life versus animal life. The moral legitimacy of using force in self defense. The importance of keeping promises. Etc.

But really it's all just reasoning from premises. The process and goal of science and philosophy are essentially the same, and the terms are essentially interchangeable. Whether you're trying to figure out dark matter, or trying to figure out the death penalty, your reasoning process is going to be essentially the same.

Note: I'm describing the conclusion I've reached as a result of this discussion. This description is in no way intended to try to convince the contrarians of anything. If you're a contrarian reading this and thinking "yes, but... ", save it. Unless you have something new to say, some new development or insight to share, there's no point in repeating your complaints one more time.

Well, don't forget the tools, science relies primarily on instrumentality. As I noted before that instrumentality is constructed to adhere to such reasoning from premises to establish its appropriate functionality. That can be very limiting, you build a box and then find only what that box contains and not what it excludes. Without experimental or observational verification it is still just philosophical musings. The lack of instrumentality (for philosophy) makes the reasoning from premises a bit more open and flexible but gives up that objectively as possible grounded aspect the instrumentality provides.

 

[Belz...]

Again, your rhetoric, your doing, your problem.

What are you even talking about? The rhetoric is yours. I quoted you saying it numerous times.

First off, it is incumbent on no one to support your claims for you.

For an off-topic and trivial comment? Why are you so obsessed about it? Well, I know why of course. You think the equivocation, and resulting distraction, means something in the larger discussion.

Third, as already noted before, if you feel your claim was not in keeping with the actual topic of the thread, then you can report it, provided you can find it.

That's complete nonsense. Not every word of a thread needs to be on topic, as you've quite expertly demonstrated for weeks.

Fourth, I have no problem with you simply asserting that you can't find it

I assure you, if I could be arsed to look for it and didn't find it, I will tell you.

I've already addressed those criticisms, which were that it is like particle antihalation, I've explained why it is specifically not like that.

I didn't ask you to tell me what it isn't. I'm asking you to demonstrate what you claim it is.

 

[theprestige]

You didn't even try.

That's just rude. I tried what I could think of to try. I'm sorry it didn't work. I'm sorry you think you were owed more effort from me.

 

[theprestige]

Well, don't forget the tools, science relies primarily on instrumentality. As I noted before that instrumentality is constructed to adhere to such reasoning from premises to establish its appropriate functionality. That can be very limiting, you build a box and then find only what that box contains and not what it excludes. Without experimental or observational verification it is still just philosophical musings. The lack of instrumentality (for philosophy) makes the reasoning from premises a bit more open and flexible but gives up that objectively as possible grounded aspect the instrumentality provides.

I see what you mean. I think the instrumentality arises from the premise that scientific premises are universal and testable. You can make a prediction about the speed of light in a vacuum, and then measure it to see if the prediction is true.

You can't really measure or test the moral value of humans versus other animals. Where science is descriptive and predictive, philosophy is prescriptive. "If you believe humans have greater moral value than other animals, you should probably..."

 

[Belz...]

That's just rude. I tried what I could think of to try. I'm sorry it didn't work. I'm sorry you think you were owed more effort from me.

Don't be ridiculous. You know me better than that. You owe me nothing. But it would be nice if the 'defenders' of philosophy, for lack of a better term, had a measure of consistency to their answers, for what they're worth. It would help sort this whole thing out.

In what way do you think I'm off-track here?

 

[The Man]

What are you even talking about? The rhetoric is yours. I quoted you saying it numerous times.

“Your mind refuses to face a conclusion.”

https://youtu.be/f2BYyeS-fIU?t=146

Again, your rhetorical fantasies are just yours and have absolutely nothing to do with me. Simply and repeatedly pointing that out to you, also, is not doing the very rhetoric you were bemoaning.

For an off-topic and trivial comment? Why are you so obsessed about it? Well, I know why of course. You think the equivocation, and resulting distraction, means something in the larger discussion.

It doesn’t matter what it is, your claims, you support them or abandon them.

Fine, so your assertion of...

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.

was just “off-topic and trivial”, we can dispense with that as being just BS now (or OTTBS if you want). The assertion of an equivocation was also just yours. I certainly never thought it had any meaning whatsoever. That is why I was asking you to support it, just in case you were trying to assert it as being, in any way, meaningful. If you now want to claim that assertion doesn’t actually mean something, thus agreeing with what I thought, that can go into the BS category as well.

That's complete nonsense. Not every word of a thread needs to be on topic, as you've quite expertly demonstrated for weeks.

Since no one claimed “every word of a thread needs to be on topic” that nonsense remains simply yours as well, so yet another BS assertion.

I assure you, if I could be arsed to look for it and didn't find it, I will tell you.

Assure whatever you want, it is again incumbent on no one to support your claims for you. Again, I gave you the option of simply restating it but evidently, based on your assertions above, because they’re BS you’d have to be arsed to do that as well. That would also explain why you would assert that simply asking and expecting you to actually be able or willing to support your claims must be rhetorical.

I didn't ask you to tell me what it isn't. I'm asking you to demonstrate what you claim it is.

No one said you asked me to tell you what it isn’t, so one more BS assertion. You asserted that it was like particle annihilation and so I explained to you that it isn’t. It is actually more similar to quantum superposition, both being the superposition of waves, though there are significant differences. Again, your only other criticism was some unspecified equivocation that evidently is now something you want to assert as basically meaningless. Again, as such, the interpretation stands. Thus A and ~A being mutually exclusive is not just a question of philosophy but one of physics (even macro world physics) and, as in the paper I linked before, a question of the philosophy of physics (pertaining to quantum mechanics). Heck, in quantum mechanics and the superposition of wave functions. An eigenvector of a pure state and its negation (also a pure state eigenvector) are, simply by definition, orthonormal in a Hilbert space . They can not be mutually exclusive, now the potentially resulting eigenstates are necessarily mutually exclusive. Though not the pure state eigenvectors or their combination in the mixed state vector. So the ontic ascription of the wave function (state vector) as real by the various interpretations of QM comes into play there. Also as noted in that paper the eigenvectors could be considered contrary (both false), in the mixed state, as opposed to contradictory (both true). However, being contrary means that both would be false and thus not mutually exclusive. The falsity (or truth) of one explicitly not excluding the falsity (or truth) of the other. Same thing with the macro world example of reflective cancellation, it can be interpreted as simply contrary as well. Again the point being that such interpretations are arguable and thus, even physically and existentially, the mutual exclusion of A and ~A questionable. Now waves like sound are longitudinal waves and in the cancelation scenario would be physically acting in the same physical space (unlike the more conceptualized state space of QM wave functions) and at the same time so that’s more like a simple conceptual logical contradiction with the opposing premises conjoined in the same statement and in the same context. This is one of the problems of trying to distinguish between, or move from, purely logical contradictions (contradictory statements) and/to physical contradictions. Time and space, particularly the scaling of such, having a major impact on the consideration. I can go into more detail on the issues of scaling if anyone wants. For example it is hypothesized that the total energy of the universe is zero. So on the scale of the universe, positive and negative energy cancels each other out.


Zero-energy universe


By all means, please, other than arguing against claims only you have made, “off-topic and trivial” BS, your own asserted meaningless equivocation BS, rhetorical fantasies, come up with some relevant criticisms you are able or just willing to actually support.