"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"

[Iwannaplato]

Likewise, there is no world, there is no life, there is no existence, there is no you and there is no me. All that is just philosophical hogwash, when all we need are mathematical descriptions.

"Pure mathematics is a subject where we don't know what we're talking about
and don't know whether what we're saying is true." /Bertrand Russell/

Well, that ain't qm.

[socrattus]

Likewise, there is no world, there is no life, there is no existence, there is no you and there is no me. All that is just philosophical hogwash, when all we need are mathematical descriptions.

"Pure mathematics is a subject where we don't know what we're talking about
and don't know whether what we're saying is true." /Bertrand Russell/

Well, that ain't qm.

The philosophy of quantum mechanics (qm) explains the behavior of quantum particles.

[Iwannaplato]

"Pure mathematics is a subject where we don't know what we're talking about
and don't know whether what we're saying is true." /Bertrand Russell/

Well, that ain't qm.

The philosophy of quantum mechanics (qm) explains the behavior of quantum particles.

It also has models of the ontology of particles (and waves) and superposition and interactions and more. That sentence is hardly math nor is it referring to just math. The sentence you just posted contradicts the OP. But of course qm is more than that also.

[Atla]

The philosophy of quantum mechanics (qm) explains the behavior of quantum particles.

Yep that's one wildly philosophical issue. One philosophical school says that we have a classical world and we have a quantum world and "quantum" behaviour happens in the latter, the other philosophical school says that everything is quantum.

[Iwannaplato]

The philosophy of quantum mechanics (qm) explains the behavior of quantum particles.

Yep that's one wildly philosophical issue. One philosophical school says that we have a classical world and we have a quantum world and "quantum" behaviour happens in the latter, the other philosophical school says that everything is quantum.

Even calling them particles is a philosophical issue and any model using that word is taking a philosophical stand.

[Atla]

And there's a third philosophical school (popular among physicists) which I forgot because I find it ridiculous: there are no quantum particles, only the classical world exists. Quantum behaviour is just a mathematical curiosity but it has no ontological reality.

[Iwannaplato]

And there's a third philosophical school (popular among physicists) which I forgot because I find it ridiculous: there are no quantum particles, only the classical world exists. Quantum behaviour is just a mathematical curiosity but it has no ontological reality.

Quantum Epistemicism/Statistical Interpretation. It's an odd claim on his part. His idea is that quantum physicists have no interest in ontology, for example. They aren't interested, as a rule, in models and understanding the nature of reality. The just want formulas. It's as if they never wrestle with cosmological issues or try to determine if the Many-Worlds Interpretation or Pilot Wave Theory or Relational Quantum Mechanics are correct. Or what the wave/particle duality is or superposition or if it's really statistical rather than linear determined, or do observers (only? at all? affect matter, or are quantum fields real or abstract, or does quantum gravity, the model, work with general relativity or retrocausality or...... and the list goes on. They are interested in finding out about the nature of reality. Given the oddness or at least seeming oddness of quantum phenomena, this means they are defacto dealing with ontology, but also must be critical of common sense and paradigmatic biases and language based biases many people may not even be conscious of. They may never open a philosophy book, but they are dealing with many overlapping skills and are essentially doing philosophy and asserting philosophical positions and trying to arrive at ontological conclusions. They are not merely pure mathematicians, juggling numbers and making observations.

The rational dismissal in the OP is not rational.

[Age]

Contrary to the popular belief that was being Wrongly held, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, there was NO, actual, incompatibility with 'classical physics' and 'quantum physics'.

Those human beings, back then, had just not yet learned how to 'look at' and 'see' things for what they Truly are, and were

[Impenitent]

we need more monads

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

we need more monads

-Imp

Gosh, I was thinking we needed more composite entities.

[Belinda]

Quantum entanglement raises the probability that space does not exist, and this relates to ontology.

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/top ... tanglement

[Age]

Quantum entanglement raises the probability that space does not exist, and this relates to ontology.

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/top ... tanglement

Why do those of you human beings who believe (in) 'quantum entanglement', believe it is true, when it is some thing that could NEVER be verified, nor proved True?
Also, how are you defining the 'space' word here, exactly?

[Belinda]

Quantum entanglement raises the probability that space does not exist, and this relates to ontology.

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/top ... tanglement

Why do those of you human beings who believe (in) 'quantum entanglement', believe it is true, when it is some thing that could NEVER be verified, nor proved True?
Also, how are you defining the 'space' word here, exactly?

It's scientifically verified all right!

[Age]

Quantum entanglement raises the probability that space does not exist, and this relates to ontology.

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/top ... tanglement

Why do those of you human beings who believe (in) 'quantum entanglement', believe it is true, when it is some thing that could NEVER be verified, nor proved True?
Also, how are you defining the 'space' word here, exactly?

It's scientifically verified all right!

LOL
LOL
LOL

Would you like to have an honest and open discussion about this?

Or, do you just want to BELIEVE what you have been told here?

Also, are you able to explain how 'quantum entanglement' could even be proved, or verified?

I suggest just 'look at' 'the claim', and imagine how it could even begin to be verified, or proved true, and then get back to 'us', here.

[socrattus]

Few Understand Why Quantum Physics Feels Impossible — Are You Ready to Join Them?
A 3-step quantum experiment that defies intuition
/ Chris Ferrie / 2 days ago/
----.
Quantum physics is weird. That’s what you’re supposed to think, anyway.
But, also, it’s over one hundred years old and is the most accurate scientific theory ever created.
It provides the basis for all modern technology.
Surely, then, someone understands what’s going on, right? …right?

I’ll let you decide for yourself. I’m going to show you the simplest set of experimental facts
about quantum physics, which display the problem of its interpretation.
Fair warning, though: there will be no answers that will satisfy you here.
-------.
https://csferrie.medium.com/few-underst ... f951148ba2