Re: Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* ! (interesting links)

On 19 Feb 2013, at 22:24, Alan Forrester wrote:

> On 19 Feb 2013, at 13:12, JAG jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll  Shows)
> >
> > http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html
> >
> > A Snapshot of Foundational *Attitudes* Toward Quantum Mechanics
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
> >
> > Can we see now, why EVERYTHING depends on attitude/meaning/justification/explanation?
>
> It depends on explanation, not on the other three ideas you  
> mentioned, and especially not on justification, which is an  
> impediment to progress.
>
> The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true.
>

I think I agree, but I have some problem with the wording. I would say  
only say that if QM is correct, then the MWI of QM is correct, as it  
is part of QM, and QM is not completeable.

Likewise, if computationalism (arithmetic and Church's thesis) is  
correct, then the MWI of Arithmetic is correct too, and then if QM is  
correct too, it has to be derivable from arithmetic.




> There is no single universe explanation of single particle  
> interference experiments or the EPR experiment. And the theory  
> itself implies the existence of the multiverse: a structure that can  
> be approximated in some circumstances by a collection of universes  
> each of which obeys the laws of classical physics.
>
> This raises the question of why so many physicists are so confused  
> about this issue. Part of the trouble is that some of the founders  
> of quantum mechanics were influenced by a bad philosophical idea:  
> logical positivism. They claimed that science is only about things  
> you can observe and not about how the world works and they applied  
> this to quantum mechanics.
>
> Where did logical positivism come from? Some philosophers thought  
> that science could be justified by observation. But, in fact, if you  
> say "a particle is at x" all that follows from this is that "a  
> particle is at x". So some philosophers decided that science should  
> only make statements about observations because nothing else can be  
> justified.
>
> There were two major mistakes in this idea both of which were  
> impediments to progress in understanding quantum mechanics. The  
> first was the idea that science is about justifying ideas from  
> observation.
>
I defend justification, but I agree with you here, although I take  
"justifying ideas from observation" as "justifying the truth of ideas  
from observation".




> You can't see all of the multiverse so by this standard we would be  
> irrational to think it exists.
>
But seeing does not justify, in any sense, existence.



> The second mistake was to take observations for granted instead of  
> asking how they worked because they are supposedly foundations on  
> which we justify ideas. The person who first understood the  
> existence of the multiverse, Hugh Everett III, did it in part by  
> realising to understand quantum mechanics you have to be willing to  
> reconsider your understanding of measurements, which is incompatible  
> with treating measurement results as foundations.
>
> > Can we see now that we can NOT have an *objective* SCIENCE since  all method amd measurements are done and evaluated by *subjective*  processes/experiences (in short, by ourselves)?
>
> So you're an inductivist and a subjectivist.
>
> > Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/ science? is it possible?
> >
> > what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
>
> The implications are a failure to make substantive progress in  
> understanding quantum mechanics for the past 80 years, except by the  
> few people who have rejected the ideas you're peddling. The lack of  
> understanding of quantum mechanics is, in part, a result of the  
> triumph of the ideas that you advocate.
>
> Every person who thinks that quantum mechanics underwrites some  
> superstitious piffle about the oneness of everything thinks that  
> way, in part, because many people have accepted your intellectual  
> standards. Every physics student who becomes cynical about  
> understanding quantum mechanics, and goes around uttering the most  
> stupid thing Richard Feynman ever said (the Feynman quote in one of  
> the articles you cited), is doing so partly because he accepted the  
> ideas you advocate about justification.
>
OK.
But pushing this idea further, and taking computationalism more  
explicitly into account makes arithmetic the ultimate theory capable  
of unifying all apparent forces and particles. We have to extend  
Everett methodology much further than to Quantum Mechanics.
Computationalism makes materialism into a sort of vitalism. Not only  
we don't need that, but we cannot use it any way.

Bruno



>
> Alan
> 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]