Philosophers, Physicists and Cranks

[Skwinty]

what, Qed (quantum Electro Dynamics) And The Calculation Of The Anomalous Magnetic Moment Of The Electron Is Not A “big Discovery”? Not Only That, But The Subsequent Development Of Qcd (quantum Chromo Dynamics) Establishing The Current Standard Model Of Particle Physics. Associate Them To Whatever Mammal You (or Dyson) Might Choose, But The Facts Are That Both Einstein And Feynman Revolutionized Modern Physics.

I agree, both men revolutionised physics and the way we think

well, It Seems He Was More A Physicist Then A Philosopher.

As I said previously, Einstein claimed that philosophy made him a better physicist, but to call him a philosopher is incorrect. You could just as well call him a musician.

arguments May Be Flawed But Evidence Is More Compelling, You Only Read What I Am Typing Now Due To Our Understanding Of Quantum Physics, That Makes Your Computer, The One I Am Typing This On Now And The Host Computer For This Forum, Possible.

I agree here as well, but what does this have to do with Bohrs argument.

apparently, Not Far Enough, That “spooky Action At A Distance” Still Got Him.

Yes, one of Einsteins statements were "The more success Quantum Theory has, the more silly it looks"

hell, I Enjoy Chopping Wood, At Least For Exercise, And Wish I Still Had A Fireplace To Use It In. What People Prefer Or What Gives Them Instant Gratification Might Have More Bearing On Philosophy Then It Does Physics, Although Physics Is Still Involved, Even In The Chopping Of Wood.

Me too, but I have a fireplace to burn it. I think it bears remembering that science originates from philosophy and yet many scientists seem quite hostile towards philosophy.

Thanks for sharing your opinions, I find this forum very interesting and eye opening. I have now hit 50 posts and have now added my signature which reflects how I feel about science in general.

 

[The Man]

Me too, but I have a fireplace to burn it. I think it bears remembering that science originates from philosophy and yet many scientists seem quite hostile towards philosophy.

I think you misconstrue, it is not philosophy that scientists particularly oppose, but its lack of concise definitions and verifiable experimentation, which science is based on, that would make philosophy just another branch of science. Certainly most scientists understand the philosophical origins of science, but the two have grown apart. One based on what is provable and the other on what is thinkable. This does not mean that they must always be opposing, but in their natures they do take opposing approaches. Can philosophy help a scientist, no doubt, as has been our scientific history. Does philosophy make a better scientist, perhaps for some but detracts for others. The only thing that makes a good scientist is good science.

 

[Skwinty]

I think you misconstrue, it is not philosophy that scientists particularly oppose, but its lack of concise definitions and verifiable experimentation, which science is based on, that would make philosophy just another branch of science. ....................................Does philosophy make a better scientist, perhaps for some but detracts for others. The only thing that makes a good scientist is good science.

How can statements like these not be construed as hostile or at very least dismissive?

"Can't see why there is any problem with scientists showing disdain for philosophers. Unless they show some utility, what are they worth, certainly nothing to a scientist."

"What answer to 'why' has any philosopher contributed to science?"

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."

 

[The Man]

Well without links or at least the identification of persons who made such statements, I have little context within which to understand them.

Remember that an insult like a compliment must be taken in the context that it is given in order to be effective.

As I said, science and philosophy are based on opposing approaches, that one might dismiss the other is hardly of any consequence, it is what you do with both or either of them that is important, at least for you and hopefully others.

 

[Skwinty]

Well without links or at least the identification of persons who made such statements, I have little context within which to understand them.

Remember that an insult like a compliment must be taken in the context that it is given in order to be effective.

As I said, science and philosophy are based on opposing approaches, that one might dismiss the other is hardly of any consequence, it is what you do with both or either of them that is important, at least for you and hopefully others.

Yes, I take your point about philosophy and science being in opposition, however the quotes I presented are from this thread. I didn't think it neccesary to link names to them.
I suppose that my feeling is that perhaps the two disciplines could benefit from each other if there was more meaningful dialogue between the concerned parties. Some physicists have said that this does occur and that in my mind is a good thing.

 

[ben m]

In layman's terms, this means that, in some
sense, there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen in our universe (but doesn't) does happen in another universe."
Having defined many worlds interpretation, then it is not unreasonable to expect that whatever happens on earth, something better happens elsewhere.
Larry Nivens book "All the Myriad Ways" was based on this interpretation of Quantum Theory.
Given the finite number of protons (as an example) in the observable universe, there must be a finite number of arrangements these protons can assume.
Apply this in an infinite number of universes , then surely this implies the possibility of duplicates of our observable universe with all its connotations , including life.

The same ("every possible Universe has manifested at some point or another") is true of half-a-dozen purely classical theories: the old infinite, flat Universe, for example; the old "oscillating" series of Big Bangs; and so on. Heck, the current inflationary Universe model makes this true (there's an exponentially huge amount of space beyond our light-cone) whether or not many-worlds is true. If you've got a philosophical objection to the universe being infinitely bigger than you, get used to it. The Universe is infinitely bigger than you. This "problem" is not unique to the many-worlds quantum interpretation.

In any case, "model X must be physically wrong because I can't abide its moral implications" is not, last time I checked, good epistemological practice.

As to why physics should provide the answer to conciousness, as Ben said , physics deals with matter and the brain is but matter and the processes of conciousness must surely be represented in the wave
functions of that matter .
Then, if MWI denies the collapse of the wave function, the wave function and all its possibilities must exist.

You've completely misunderstood many-worlds. The "other possibilities" of many-worlds are causally disconnected from one another. Any individual wavefunction may as well think that it's the only one out there; exactly the same behavior results when (a) wavefunctions "collapse" into eigenstates or (b) eigenstates detach and never interact again. When I shoot two atoms at one another and watch how they behave as they follow Schrodinger's Equation, the what I observe is exactly the same whether it was due to Copenhagen-collapse or many-worlds detachment. When I put 10^23 atoms together into a brain and watch how the brain behaves as it follows Schrodinger's Equation, what I observe is exactly the same whether it was due to Copenhagen-collapse or many-worlds detachment. Exactly exactly the same. Therefore, "consciousness", if it's a subset of "how the brain behaves in the course of obeying quantum mechanics", is 100% indifferent to the underlying interpretation.

Now as Richard Feynman said " I can safely say that no-one understands Quantum Physics" then the gamut of Quantum Theory interpretations must surely be an enigma to every one and not the select few.

That's why there remain several interpretations. Any interpretation with evidence against it would have been discarded already. We call them "interpretations" rather than "theories" because there is unlikely to be any possible way to tell them apart, no matter how good your experiments were. (Theories of consciousness remain ordinary "theories", since we still hope/expect/plan to figure it out someday via the usual scientific means.)

Also, I implied that either quantum theory or inflation or MWI is wrong.
I doubt whether quantum theory or inflation is wrong, even though inflation is a bolt on solution to the big bang theory. So perhaps MWI is wrong.
I dont know and I suspect that neither do you.

The premise is incorrect. There is no correlation or anticorrelation between inflation and MWI. They could both be right, or both wrong, or one and one.

 

[godless dave]

Given the finite number of protons (as an example) in the observable universe, there must be a finite number of arrangements these protons can assume.

That doesn't follow. There could be a finite number of protons and an infinite number of arrangements.

Apply this in an infinite number of universes , then surely this implies the possibility of duplicates of our observable universe with all its connotations , including life.

But not the possibility of a universe that looks exactly like our own except Spock has a beard.

As to why physics should provide the answer to conciousness, as Ben said , physics deals with matter and the brain is but matter

Reproductive cells are made of matter too, but we don't use physics to explain organisms reproducing.

and the processes of conciousness must surely be represented in the wave
functions of that matter.

Surely? Why?

Also, I implied that either quantum theory or inflation or MWI is wrong.

Yes, you did. On what basis?

I doubt whether quantum theory or inflation is wrong, even though inflation is a bolt on solution to the big bang theory. So perhaps MWI is wrong.

Or they're all correct. I don't find MWI very interesting myself, but it does not in any way conflict with inflation.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Ben m
Thank you for taking the time to add your opinion to my musings. Now, I have made it clear in previous posts that I am not a physicist nor a philospher, I have two requests.
1. Please try to keep it simple and stop hitting me over the head with your erudition.
2. Also try not to make assumptions about me.

Ben m:"If you've got a philosophical objection to the universe being infinitely bigger than you, get used to it. The Universe is infinitely bigger than you. This "problem" is not unique to the many-worlds quantum interpretation"
I am an amateur astronomer and every time I look through my telescope I am reminded of humankinds insignificance. So the above statement is incorrect. My philosophical and moral objection relates to the many worlds interpretation and I quote here what I said
"As far as the "many worlds" interpretation is concerned, this presents somewhat of a philosophical and moral dilemma. There would be no reason to strive for improvement in any sphere as there would always be something better elsewhere." and "To my puny mind and imagination, the idea of many worlds is insane. (thank god for decoherence)"
I can see that I was not very clear in what I wrote here but the issue of quantum suicide is essentially what I was referring to.
"Quantum suicide
There is a rather more dramatic test than the one outlined above for people prepared to put their lives on the line: use a machine which kills them if a random quantum decay happens. If MWI is true, they will still be alive in the world where the decay didn't happen and would feel no interruption in their stream of consciousness. By repeating this process a number of times, their continued consciousness would be arbitrarily unlikely unless MWI was true, when they would be alive in all the worlds where the random decay was on their side. From their viewpoint they would be immune to this death process. Clearly, if MWI does not hold, they would be dead in the one world. Other people would generally just see them die and would not be able to benefit from the result of this experiment."
Now I am not confusing this with Nivens book as has been suggested by another poster.
If this is not a moral and philosophical dilemma then there are no morals or philosophy in the modern world. Hence my original statement albeit badly communicated.
With respect to Quantum theory, inflation or MWI being incorrect, I said that in my opinion MWI was probably wrong based on the quotes below.
"the existence of an infinite number of non-communicating parallel universes is highly suspect as it violates those interpretations of Occam's Razor"
"MWI is considered by some to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them. Others claim MWI is directly testable. Everett regarded MWI as falsifiable since any test that falsifies conventional quantum theory would also falsify MWI.
According to Martin Gardner MWI has two different interpretations: real or unreal, and claims that Stephen Hawking and Steve Weinberg favour the unreal interpretation. Gardner also claims that the interpretation favoured by the majority of physicists is that the other worlds are not real in the same way as our world is real, whereas the "realist" view is supported by MWI experts David Deutsch and Bryce DeWitt. However Stephen Hawking is on record as a saying that the other worlds are as real as ours and Tipler reports Hawking saying that MWI is "trivially true" (scientific jargon for "obviously true") if quantum theory applies to all reality. Roger Penrose agrees with Hawking that QM applied to the universe implies MW, although he considers the current lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional QM"
Once again I will refer to my signature line by John Archibald Wheeler.

 

[Skwinty]

Hi Godless Dave,
Thank you too for taking the time to share your opinions. Please comment on my latest post.

 

[ben m]

Skwinty,

"Quantum suicide", please note, is in the "speculative implications" section of the Wikipedia article you're quoting. (By the way: would you mind using the "QUOTE" tag for such citations? It was hard to pick out your words from Wikipedia's.) It's clear that the actual experience of any actual "quantum suicide" attempt are exactly indistinguishable in the many-worlds case as in the probabilistic Copenhagen case. (If you think that the experiences are distinguishable, you've misunderstood the experiment.) Anyway, its moral implications are indeed an interesting topic for debate; I'd say that the "problems" are indistinguishable from similar "problems" for a classical infinite universe, an oscillating universe, etc.. But that's my opinion. And again: the theory's moral implications have no implications on whether it's true or false. Cosmic Acceleration implies a really unpleasant eschatology---that didn't stop it from happening. Chaos theory implies that, for any choice you make, the full ethical consequences are formally unknowable---sorry, that problem can't be used to reject chaos theory. Some people think that the Theory of Evolution implies that selfishness/eugenics/racism is good---they're wrong, and in any case evolution is what it is.

And there's still no conflict with inflationary cosmology.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you to believe in many-worlds; because of the lack of evidence, many-worlds vs. Copenhagen vs. whatever is a matter of belief, not of scientific argument. But you seem to think that it's a matter of evidence; I think you're totally wrong on this point, and I disagree with the suggestion (Paul Davies is cited by WP) that the difference is testable. Finally, please note that Occam's Razor is (a) not a law-of-physics, but an often-useful habit of thought, and (b) not obviously on the side of either to MWI or CI, as is noted in the WP article you cite.

 

[blutoski]

Heres what he says about :

"There has never been a physics theory which answered these sorts of questions. Galileo didn't do it, nor Newton, nor Einstein, nor Planck. All we've ever gotten from physics, to a pretty good approximation, is equations-of-motion. "

Gardner has said that he suspects that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed.

And this supports your claim how?

Or are you just throwing out random quotes for our .sig files?

 

[godless dave]

I can only repeat ben m's comment: being morally or philosophically problematic has no bearing on whether a scientific theory is an accurate description of reality.

And the many worlds interpretation does not in any way conflict with inflation.

 

[blutoski]

Gardner has said that he suspects that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed.
I see two ways here.
1. The fundamentals of human conciousness is undiscoverable
2. It is discoverable only if a new physics mechanism is made available.
I suspect he refers to quantum mechanics as this is the best we have to offer at the moment.
As far as the "many worlds" interpretation is concerned, this presents somewhat of a philosophical and moral dilemma. There would be no reason to strive for improvement in any sphere as there would always be something better elsewhere. Where these other Universes are is any ones guess.
On the other hand, the standard model of cosmology shows exactly where these other universes are.
So, being that the standard model incorporates quantum theory and inflation, one of them must be wrong.
So either quantum theory is wrong or inlation is wrong..Or there are many me's and you's in many different worlds in many different universes.To my puny mind and imagination, the idea of many worlds is insane. (thank god for decoherence)
So who is wrong, the cosmologists with inflation, the physicists with quantum theory or my puny human brain that can't cope with the many worlds and all possible histories.
Talk about a conundrum wrapped in an enigma

I don't understand how you come to any of this. Just send Martin an email to ask if your 'interpretation' of the quoted passage in your previous post is correct.

I just finished re-reading the chapter on philosophy intefering with scientific operations in "Science – Good, Bad and Bogus" and it's pretty clear that he's cool to the idea, to the point of arguing that the belief that philosophy is instrumental for physics research is an example of pseudoscience. His DiaMat and Third Reich examples were not included for drama.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that any of these quotes you've provided give us any insight into his opinion on this topic. Are you quoting from Scriviner?

 

[INRM]

In reading a history of the atomic bomb tests, it's pretty obvious the early tests were conducted with the knowledge that just maybe, one of those things -could- ignite the atmosphere and terminate life.
Pressing on regardless, that didn't happen, but the thought that it might apparently had little effect on doing the testing.
We engineers like to see our toys work, after all!

There are some logical flaws in that scenario. You're working with 20/20 hind-sight. We know the atom-bomb tests worked as they were supposed to and we know that the worries that it would ignite the atmosphere are invalid.

Therefore we know that people asking "should we test the weapon" were invalid because we know the worries were not valid.

However there are so many other scientific endeavors that are...
1.) in the works which have not been tested yet or put into use
2.) We don't know what the test results will be when they are tested, or what effect the technology will have when put into use.

We don't know what the results of these scientific endeavors (hypothetical) will be, so asking questions as to weather it should be done IS indeed valid.


Originally Posted by the Man

what, Qed (quantum Electro Dynamics) And The Calculation Of The Anomalous Magnetic Moment Of The Electron Is Not A “big Discovery”? Not Only That, But The Subsequent Development Of Qcd (quantum Chromo Dynamics) Establishing The Current Standard Model Of Particle Physics. Associate Them To Whatever Mammal You (or Dyson) Might Choose, But The Facts Are That Both Einstein And Feynman Revolutionized Modern Physics.

What are Quantum Electro-Dynamics and what's Quantum Chromo-Dynamics?


Godless Dave,

That doesn't follow. There could be a finite number of protons and an infinite number of arrangements.

Possible


INRM
BTW: What's "Quantum Suicide"?

 

[Skwinty]

And this supports your claim how?

Or are you just throwing out random quotes for our .sig files?

Hi Blutoski

"There has never been a physics theory which answered these sorts of questions. Galileo didn't do it, nor Newton, nor Einstein, nor Planck. All we've ever gotten from physics, to a pretty good approximation, is equations-of-motion. "

This was a statement from Ben m. I can see the neccesity for putting quotes and names to statement that I refer to now.Sorry.

The issue was I believe, about physics answering the question "What is conciousness?". (See post 49) I then quoted Gardner in reply to Bens statement.Now , I have not read Martins books so I am unaware of the 3rd Reich and Diamat issue.

As far as throwing out random quotes for sig files, perhaps you should read the posts and remember the context of the discussion.

Once again sorry for not indicating source of quotes. Will endeavour to do so in future.

 

[Skwinty]

I don't understand how you come to any of this. Just send Martin an email to ask if your 'interpretation' of the quoted passage in your previous post is correct......Are you quoting from Scriviner?

Hi Blutoski

I was quoting from wiki

"Gardner has said that he suspects that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner.

The only interpretation I made from this is

"1. The fundamentals of human conciousness is undiscoverable
2. It is discoverable only if a new physics mechanism is made available.
I suspect he refers to quantum mechanics as this is the best we have to offer at the moment.
"

 

[Skwinty]

Quantum suicide
There is a rather more dramatic test than the one outlined above for people prepared to put their lives on the line: use a machine which kills them if a random quantum decay happens. If MWI is true, they will still be alive in the world where the decay didn't happen and would feel no interruption in their stream of consciousness. By repeating this process a number of times, their continued consciousness would be arbitrarily unlikely unless MWI was true, when they would be alive in all the worlds where the random decay was on their side. From their viewpoint they would be immune to this death process. Clearly, if MWI does not hold, they would be dead in the one world. Other people would generally just see them die and would not be able to benefit from the result of this experiment. See Quantum suicide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Quantum_suicide

This one comes from Comparative properties and experimental support.

If I understand this correctly then, should I volunteer for this experiment, I will be buried by my wife and kids here on planet earth, but in another world some where else I would be carrying on as normal. Where would everyone else be? Would I still have access to my telescope?

If so, them MWI has similar properties to various types of religion.
Believe in a certain saviour and you shall have everlasting life after you die on planet earth. Of course only the person who dies knows/or doesnt know the truth.

This is what I find presents a dilemma. Okay , I get that this dilemma does say anything about the truth or falsity about the theory, but doesnt this scenario make the test unfalsifiable and thus not valid.

This type of theory leads to others where it is postulated that when you die, you are at once ressurected into some kind of computer simulation.
It just gets a bit much to come to terms with.

All this based on the quantum behaviour at the sub-atomic level.
Thank goodness for decoherence and that in the real world we dont see these events.

Perhaps I should stop reading books about science..

 

[ben m]

If I understand this correctly then, should I volunteer for this experiment, I will be buried by my wife and kids here on planet earth, but in another world some where else I would be carrying on as normal. Where would everyone else be? Would I still have access to my telescope?

You do not understand it correctly. In one of the worlds, you're lying there dead, and your wife and kids are saying, "Oh no! The nucleus decayed and triggered the gun!" In the other world, you're standing there alive, with your wife/kids/etc., saying "Whew! I got lucky! The nucleus didn't decay, the gun didn't go off, and I'm alive!" Please note that these are identical to the two possible outcomes if Copenhagen is true. In the Copenhagen version, the initial wavefunction ("entire universe, including man cringing in front of decay-triggerable gun") collapses into one of two states (50% probability that it will collapse into "universe including dead man in front of fired gun", 50% that it will collapse into "universe including living man in front of un-fired gun"), with the randomly-chosen state becoming reality and the other state never appearing at all. In MWI, both states appear, but since they're completely detached from one another, each one feels like it was simply "chosen" Copenhagen-style.

You appear to have been mis-imaging it in a way that singles out "your consciousness" and duplicates it in somewhere to prevent you from dying. Sorry, wrong.

It's exactly the same as Schrodinger's Cat, except that this time you're the cat and the whole Universe is the box, and no one ever opens it to cause collapse.

 

[sol invictus]

There is a rather more dramatic test than the one outlined above for people prepared to put their lives on the line: use a machine which kills them if a random quantum decay happens. If MWI is true, they will still be alive in the world where the decay didn't happen and would feel no interruption in their stream of consciousness. By repeating this process a number of times, their continued consciousness would be arbitrarily unlikely unless MWI was true, when they would be alive in all the worlds where the random decay was on their side.

(my emphasis)

The statement in bold is incorrect. The whole point of MWI is that probabilities are the fraction of "worlds" in which an event occurs or does not occur. If you set up and participated in N quantum suicides each with 50/50 odds, your chances of survival would be 1/2^N both in MWI and in the more standard QM interpretation.

 

[The Man]

What are Quantum Electro-Dynamics and what's Quantum Chromo-Dynamics?

QED is a quantum field theory that descries interactions of electrically charged particles (electromagnetic force) as exchanges of photons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

QCD is a similar description of the strong nuclear force where the charge involved is called “the color charge” (although it has nothing to do with actual color) and the particle exchanged is the “gluon”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics

If I understand this correctly then, should I volunteer for this experiment, I will be buried by my wife and kids here on planet earth, but in another world some where else I would be carrying on as normal. Where would everyone else be? Would I still have access to my telescope?

The term “worlds” in the many words interpretation actual refers to universes, not different worlds within this particular universe.

If so, them MWI has similar properties to various types of religion.
Believe in a certain saviour and you shall have everlasting life after you die on planet earth. Of course only the person who dies knows/or doesnt know the truth.

No as you are just you if you die you're dead regardless of which interpretation you might believe is correct. Even in a many worlds interpretation you will eventually be dead in all possible worlds, as your inevitable death is not the result of an observation of a quantum superposition of states.

This is what I find presents a dilemma. Okay , I get that this dilemma does say anything about the truth or falsity about the theory, but doesnt this scenario make the test unfalsifiable and thus not valid.

This type of theory leads to others where it is postulated that when you die, you are at once ressurected into some kind of computer simulation.
It just gets a bit much to come to terms with. .

Actually that has more to do with what is the nature of conciseness and not quantum physical interpretations.

All this based on the quantum behaviour at the sub-atomic level.
Thank goodness for decoherence and that in the real world we dont see these events.

Perhaps I should stop reading books about science..

While on the subject of quantum physical interpretations please see the transactional interpretation of quantum physic as I do not believe it has been brought up yet.

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

ETA; As for quantum physical interpretations not being falsifiable, well that is why they are called interpretations and not theories.