An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Pages
▼
Pages
▼
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
MIT Technology Review — Poll Reveals Quantum Physicists’ Disagreement About the Nature of Reality
A survey of leading thinkers shows that they are as far as ever from agreeing on the nature of reality
No, Matt. The questions polled were about the interpretation of QM wrt "reality," which we are accustomed to think of in terms of Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry as the "natural" organizational principles.
The miners realize full well about price, and they are demanding a bigger share of what is now going to monopoly rent due to monopsony. Sending a message in South Africa that colonialism is over.
The verifiable facts of science and one thing, while their interpretation is quite another, and depends upon the underlying "world view" through which they are viewed, the philosophy which underpins the way they are explained. It is commonly supposed that a scientific discovery is capable of proving a given philosophical thesis, but this is quite impossible, since science, in all strictness, has to do exclusively with its entirely empirical methods and discoveries--it deals with the measurable; science is "hard" to the extent its result are expressible mathematically. As for the interpretation of these, even prominent scientists can disagree entirely on the interpretation of some scientific discovery.
Clearly, it is important to distinguish between scientific facts and results as such on the one hand, and philosophical opinions that are liable to be taken for scientific truths, on the other hand. Modern science takes on its form more or less in the sixteenth century, and what underlay it was the idea that the universe is comparable to a machine, to something like a complex clockwork. This idea gave wings to the scientific enterprise, and it is the notion behind Newton's mechanics, as well as being fundamental to the philosophy of Descartes. Thus, the purely philosophical idea that the universe is machine-like had come to be taken as a scientific truth, owing chiefly to the success of Newtonian mechanics and its offshoots and applications.
The mechanistic idea, however, could not explain quantum phenomena; among other things, it implies determinism: everything is the result of the mechanistic motion of the particles which constitute the universe, but quantum phenomena require the application of statistics. Einstein completely disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation, and felt that quantum mechanics was a purely makeshift and temporary explanation that would soon give rise to the proper deterministic one, for in his view, "God does not play dice with the universe." What seems to be the case is that neither side was sufficiently aware, if at all, that both determinism and indeterminism as philosoophical postulates can neither be proved nor disproved by the purely empirical methods and facts of science, and it can be seen that even the best scientists tend to confuse their science with their philosophy. It is the purely technical insights of science that allow the technological applications which constitute so many "validations" in the minds of most, and not the attached philosophy which, however can be very tenacious. The mechanistic idea still holds sway in both the scientific and popular mind.
This confusion of two entirely different domains leads to a kind of wholesale "reductionism" of the real. To this day, therefore, one will hear biologists affirm that life results from--is merely--the complex association of purely physical entities; or that consciousness is the result of electrical activity in the brain, which in turn amounts to atomic and sub-atomic activity in certain cells. Everything thus gets reduced to particles and their motion. These are purely philosophical assumptions, and can by no means be proved or disproved by the purely empirical methods of science.
To "do" science in the modern sense, seems to require a reduction of the real to what is quantifiable, and this is "reality." To take this seriously involves assuming that the external world is basically meaningless in the last analysis, since the mere "hurrying of material," as Whitehead put it, is without significance. All meaning comes to be taken as purely subjective. Reality is thus divided into two spheres: the external things and the internal or mental things. These kinds of notions gave rise to the still unsolvable so-called "mind-body problem." Science is still searching for a way to "materialize" and hence fully quantify and measure the phenomena of life and consciousness. To "do science" is to consider reality that has been reduced and accessible to quantity and measure; it must be so reduced in order to reach scientific "truth," and it is considered that this purely philosophical notion actually is a profound discovery. Of course, it goes without saying that there is no empirical evidence for this idea; it is merely a philosophical assumption.
Well, the point (or one of them) is that "science" is one thing and "scientism" is another. The former is a technical activity, the latter is a world view due to bad philosophy. Scientism ascribes to science what it is impossible for it to deliver; nevertheless, it is what modern man truly believes in; it is his true religion. Science and its technological applications, which seem to validate it as a weltanschauung, are what underlie his conviction of the definitive superiority of modern "civilization," of modern scientific knowledge, which becomes the only true knowledge, and in short, of "progress."
Those who profess it don't realize that scientism is a religion, or at best a philosophy. In fact, in setting forth the religions of India, Sri Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE) begins his treatise with atheistic materialism.
Science cannot "prove" scientism, in that science ends with the observable and scientism assumes that nothin exists but the observable and reduces the observable to the material. It's an extreme form of empiricism based on unsound reasoning.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteAnything in there on the d-band electrons? They have unique characteristics in the "noble" metals...
They seem to have an actual effect on certain human's view of reality...
rsp,
No, Matt. The questions polled were about the interpretation of QM wrt "reality," which we are accustomed to think of in terms of Newtonian physics and Euclidian geometry as the "natural" organizational principles.
ReplyDelete"Poll Reveals Fox News' Disagreement About the Nature of Reality"
ReplyDeleteNow platinum mines are being closed down:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/01/15/anglo-american-platinum-to-shut-mines/
Something is going on "out there"...
rsp,
"Poll Reveals Fox News' Disagreement About the Nature of Reality"
ReplyDeleteHey, if quantum physicists can't agree on what reality is, why not just make stuff up. :)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/01/15/anglo-american-platinum-to-shut-mines/
ReplyDeleteLooks like the natives are getting restless.
That reminds me that I need to check and see if my cat Schrodinger is playing dead.
ReplyDelete"That reminds me that I need to check and see if my cat Schrodinger is playing dead."
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure mine died, at least I couldn't wake him yesterday, and he still hasn't stirred. Waiting for confirmation from Megan Kelley.
"I'm pretty sure mine died, at least I couldn't wake him yesterday, and he still hasn't stirred. Waiting for confirmation from Megan Kelley."
ReplyDeleteYou need to look to know for sure.
Natives still apparently dont realize it is about price NOT quantity Tom... ;)
ReplyDeleteThe miners realize full well about price, and they are demanding a bigger share of what is now going to monopoly rent due to monopsony. Sending a message in South Africa that colonialism is over.
ReplyDeleteThe verifiable facts of science and one thing, while their interpretation is quite another, and depends upon the underlying "world view" through which they are viewed, the philosophy which underpins the way they are explained. It is commonly supposed that a scientific discovery is capable of proving a given philosophical thesis, but this is quite impossible, since science, in all strictness, has to do exclusively with its entirely empirical methods and discoveries--it deals with the measurable; science is "hard" to the extent its result are expressible mathematically. As for the interpretation of these, even prominent scientists can disagree entirely on the interpretation of some scientific discovery.
ReplyDeleteClearly, it is important to distinguish between scientific facts and results as such on the one hand, and philosophical opinions that are liable to be taken for scientific truths, on the other hand. Modern science takes on its form more or less in the sixteenth century, and what underlay it was the idea that the universe is comparable to a machine, to something like a complex clockwork. This idea gave wings to the scientific enterprise, and it is the notion behind Newton's mechanics, as well as being fundamental to the philosophy of Descartes. Thus, the purely philosophical idea that the universe is machine-like had come to be taken as a scientific truth, owing chiefly to the success of Newtonian mechanics and its offshoots and applications.
The mechanistic idea, however, could not explain quantum phenomena; among other things, it implies determinism: everything is the result of the mechanistic motion of the particles which constitute the universe, but quantum phenomena require the application of statistics. Einstein completely disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation, and felt that quantum mechanics was a purely makeshift and temporary explanation that would soon give rise to the proper deterministic one, for in his view, "God does not play dice with the universe." What seems to be the case is that neither side was sufficiently aware, if at all, that both determinism and indeterminism as philosoophical postulates can neither be proved nor disproved by the purely empirical methods and facts of science, and it can be seen that even the best scientists tend to confuse their science with their philosophy. It is the purely technical insights of science that allow the technological applications which constitute so many "validations" in the minds of most, and not the attached philosophy which, however can be very tenacious. The mechanistic idea still holds sway in both the scientific and popular mind.
This confusion of two entirely different domains leads to a kind of wholesale "reductionism" of the real. To this day, therefore, one will hear biologists affirm that life results from--is merely--the complex association of purely physical entities; or that consciousness is the result of electrical activity in the brain, which in turn amounts to atomic and sub-atomic activity in certain cells. Everything thus gets reduced to particles and their motion. These are purely philosophical assumptions, and can by no means be proved or disproved by the purely empirical methods of science.
ReplyDeleteTo "do" science in the modern sense, seems to require a reduction of the real to what is quantifiable, and this is "reality." To take this seriously involves assuming that the external world is basically meaningless in the last analysis, since the mere "hurrying of material," as Whitehead put it, is without significance. All meaning comes to be taken as purely subjective. Reality is thus divided into two spheres: the external things and the internal or mental things. These kinds of notions gave rise to the still unsolvable so-called "mind-body problem." Science is still searching for a way to "materialize" and hence fully quantify and measure the phenomena of life and consciousness. To "do science" is to consider reality that has been reduced and accessible to quantity and measure; it must be so reduced in order to reach scientific "truth," and it is considered that this purely philosophical notion actually is a profound discovery. Of course, it goes without saying that there is no empirical evidence for this idea; it is merely a philosophical assumption.
Well stated. I would simply add that that assumptions are fine as tools but when assumptions become presumptions they turn to cognitive biases.
ReplyDeleteWell, the point (or one of them) is that "science" is one thing and "scientism" is another. The former is a technical activity, the latter is a world view due to bad philosophy. Scientism ascribes to science what it is impossible for it to deliver; nevertheless, it is what modern man truly believes in; it is his true religion. Science and its technological applications, which seem to validate it as a weltanschauung, are what underlie his conviction of the definitive superiority of modern "civilization," of modern scientific knowledge, which becomes the only true knowledge, and in short, of "progress."
ReplyDeleteThose who profess it don't realize that scientism is a religion, or at best a philosophy. In fact, in setting forth the religions of India, Sri Madhvacharya (1238–1317 CE) begins his treatise with atheistic materialism.
ReplyDeleteScience cannot "prove" scientism, in that science ends with the observable and scientism assumes that nothin exists but the observable and reduces the observable to the material. It's an extreme form of empiricism based on unsound reasoning.
Agreed!
ReplyDelete