News0 min ago
Quantum Philosphy
Has anyone come across this and has an opinion on it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My post was based on this -
https:/
and I might have a gander here in a moment - https:/
https:/
and I might have a gander here in a moment - https:/
Until proven otherwise, it is just a book, the contents if which are intended to help the reader impress people with, at parties.
That puts it at the same level as "A Brief History of Time", "Chaos", by James Gleik or, if I wanted to be really unkind, Erich von Daniken.
Judging by what wiki says, sections I and II are to prep you for his main theory. Being historically and mathematically accurate and valid means they should, perhaps, be the scene setters for any book putting forth a new theory of this type?
So, walk the reader through a series of incontestable facts (debating props, internet, for the use of) and, while in a suitably pummelled state, let the main presentation begin.
I can't knock it if I haven't read it; I merely want to convey what level of cynicism I already suffer from.
:-P
That puts it at the same level as "A Brief History of Time", "Chaos", by James Gleik or, if I wanted to be really unkind, Erich von Daniken.
Judging by what wiki says, sections I and II are to prep you for his main theory. Being historically and mathematically accurate and valid means they should, perhaps, be the scene setters for any book putting forth a new theory of this type?
So, walk the reader through a series of incontestable facts (debating props, internet, for the use of) and, while in a suitably pummelled state, let the main presentation begin.
I can't knock it if I haven't read it; I merely want to convey what level of cynicism I already suffer from.
:-P
Thanks for your replies, the reason for my question is that in our village there is a group of zealous bio(organic) enthusiasts who appear to have been given the keys to the universe. Their latest proselytising efforts involved a lecture on this subject(quantum philosophy) which for me would have been even less comprehensible than normal as it was in French. Having attempted to find out more about it (via wiki) I ended up none the wiser as the explanation in wiki appeared opaque or vague to say the least and I was beginning to doubt my grip in reality. Two friends who attended the lecture subsequently asked me what I thought of it and as my reply was that I had no idea what it was I decided someone (perhaps me) needed help. It appears to have had little impact on mainstream philosophy as it has been going for 14 years. Being quantum related perhaps it has an effect by not having an effect?
jim, my take on it is that people have invented self consistent philosophical micro-universes ever since man began to think. They are what we now usually call 'religion'. Of course they always fail when they encounter reality as their self consistency cannot extend outwards. Quantum philosophy seems to be another example though I would be interested to hear arguments to the contrary from anybody who can explain what it is.
//Mibs, I had a gander at the book (ta for the link) and became somewhat dismayed as there was a reference to Neitzsche on the first page which to me is invariably an indicator of self-important wordiness :-)//
Jom, your opinion of Nietzsche is not lost on me, however my take on that reference was that the author was sidestepping rather than hitching his horse to Nietzsche's wagon.
Based on the greater context you have given to your op, I'm doubting the relevance my link has to your question but if only inadvertently, this book has peaked my interest in a way very few books do. I'll thank you later if/when I've decided it was worth the read. With any luck it will at the very least keep me out of your hair for a while. ;o)
Jom, your opinion of Nietzsche is not lost on me, however my take on that reference was that the author was sidestepping rather than hitching his horse to Nietzsche's wagon.
Based on the greater context you have given to your op, I'm doubting the relevance my link has to your question but if only inadvertently, this book has peaked my interest in a way very few books do. I'll thank you later if/when I've decided it was worth the read. With any luck it will at the very least keep me out of your hair for a while. ;o)
I still wish I knew exactly what was said in the talk because as I've hinted there's such a wide range and I don't want to lay into the wrong thing. But anyway.
The basic problem with any philosophical position based on science is always the same: the science itself is subject to some level of change and revision, meaning that any conclusions reached no matter the strength of the philosophical argument are bound to be on shaky ground. Quantum Mechanics (QM) probably illustrates this problem better than anything else I can think og: essentially, any and all philosophies with some claim to originating from a scientific starting point are likely to be wholly wrong (and this is even before you start delving into the multiple interpretations of classical physics!); while the new physics itself has progressed markedly since any philosopher got their hands on it. Unless you are at or near the cutting edge of the subject you haven't got a chance to be even starting in the right place, let alone finishing there. This even applies to my own interpretation of the subject, for that matter, that I'm still having to think about how to word so I'll save that for another maxed-out AB post.
I suppose, though, that any attempt at "Quantum Philosophy" has to start at the point that a century of experiments has confirmed that the mathematical equations underlying the theory (most notably, the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations) are worth using and provide an accurate, if seriously bizarre, description of the world. Strictly speaking, though, these equations arguably don't actually describe the real world, so much as they describe the "square root" of it ("solutions" to QM equations must typically be squared in order to produce something you can actually observe and measure) -- and in a special way at that, introducing the square root of -1 (traditionally called the "imaginary unit") all over the place. Although by now I am used to this, when you step back for a moment it's seriously weird. i = sqrt(-1) got its name because when it was first discovered people didn't even accept the reality of it as a number. And yet, apparently, the real world insists upon something you can never directly see being at the very heart of how it works.
Perhaps it's all just a mathematical trick, that obscures how the world actually works. If so, then (perhaps a tad unfortunately) it's an incredibly successful trick.
But anyway, that's the mess we find ourselves in -- the Quantum world is by its very nature incredibly weird, but also incredibly true. Its truth has allowed us to progress unbelievably far in the last century of so; its weirdness opens the door for anyone and his dog to have a go at explaining it. In terms of mainstream scientific philosophy of QM, I personally have little time for the "many-worlds interpretation" (each time a "choice" has to be made, all events actually occur, spawning different worlds), which is just silly* but unfortunately rather popular particularly among spiritualists, I think. After all, if these other worlds in fact exist, their argument goes, we can communicate with them (look up "quantum jumping" as an example of this sort of crap).
The other key question, that I've given myself no room in this post to discuss, would be the question of the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. Again, serious scientists have in the past given this idea (that consciousness plays a meaningful role in QM) credence; again, I think that's tosh; again, some people have jumped all over that and twisted it from scientific tosh to pseudoscientific tosh.
*then again, I suppose an interpretation I have more respect for but which involves communication travelling backwards in time is also pretty silly on the face of it...
The basic problem with any philosophical position based on science is always the same: the science itself is subject to some level of change and revision, meaning that any conclusions reached no matter the strength of the philosophical argument are bound to be on shaky ground. Quantum Mechanics (QM) probably illustrates this problem better than anything else I can think og: essentially, any and all philosophies with some claim to originating from a scientific starting point are likely to be wholly wrong (and this is even before you start delving into the multiple interpretations of classical physics!); while the new physics itself has progressed markedly since any philosopher got their hands on it. Unless you are at or near the cutting edge of the subject you haven't got a chance to be even starting in the right place, let alone finishing there. This even applies to my own interpretation of the subject, for that matter, that I'm still having to think about how to word so I'll save that for another maxed-out AB post.
I suppose, though, that any attempt at "Quantum Philosophy" has to start at the point that a century of experiments has confirmed that the mathematical equations underlying the theory (most notably, the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations) are worth using and provide an accurate, if seriously bizarre, description of the world. Strictly speaking, though, these equations arguably don't actually describe the real world, so much as they describe the "square root" of it ("solutions" to QM equations must typically be squared in order to produce something you can actually observe and measure) -- and in a special way at that, introducing the square root of -1 (traditionally called the "imaginary unit") all over the place. Although by now I am used to this, when you step back for a moment it's seriously weird. i = sqrt(-1) got its name because when it was first discovered people didn't even accept the reality of it as a number. And yet, apparently, the real world insists upon something you can never directly see being at the very heart of how it works.
Perhaps it's all just a mathematical trick, that obscures how the world actually works. If so, then (perhaps a tad unfortunately) it's an incredibly successful trick.
But anyway, that's the mess we find ourselves in -- the Quantum world is by its very nature incredibly weird, but also incredibly true. Its truth has allowed us to progress unbelievably far in the last century of so; its weirdness opens the door for anyone and his dog to have a go at explaining it. In terms of mainstream scientific philosophy of QM, I personally have little time for the "many-worlds interpretation" (each time a "choice" has to be made, all events actually occur, spawning different worlds), which is just silly* but unfortunately rather popular particularly among spiritualists, I think. After all, if these other worlds in fact exist, their argument goes, we can communicate with them (look up "quantum jumping" as an example of this sort of crap).
The other key question, that I've given myself no room in this post to discuss, would be the question of the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics. Again, serious scientists have in the past given this idea (that consciousness plays a meaningful role in QM) credence; again, I think that's tosh; again, some people have jumped all over that and twisted it from scientific tosh to pseudoscientific tosh.
*then again, I suppose an interpretation I have more respect for but which involves communication travelling backwards in time is also pretty silly on the face of it...
Perhaps part of the problem with qm interpretations is in over-reaching attempts to relate it to our macro-world experience. I have long suspected that many of the seeming time contradictions that arise from observations of quantum effects might come down to the possibility that such effects have little regard for our perceptions of elapsed time, for example, trying to pinpoint the location of a photon along its route from the beginning to the end of its journey where discrete measures of time and space can no longer are defined in classical terms.
I think that quite a few pseudo-scientists either see quantum mechanics as another way of bamboozling the unwary / naive or try to use it to somehow justify their (unreliable) world model. Either way trying to explain the macro universe in terms of the subatomic universe (which itself is beyond most peoples intuitive comprehension ) looks like not knowing that it is a good idea to stop digging when daylight no longer reaches the bottom of the hole.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Body & Soul8 mins ago
Day Trippers Will Have To Pay €5 To...
News17 mins ago
Body & Soul17 mins ago
Who Inherits If Children Are Adopted ?
Law22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.