Re: Quantum Mechanics [QM] is Grounded on AntiRealism
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:54 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
The information that's most accessible for public consumption around QM seems to be all about the woowoo bullshit side of it.
QM being grounded on antirealism. First, you seem to be misunderstanding what antirealism generally means.accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:49 pmWhat's the topic?Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:47 pmShe quickly realized that she knows way less about the topic than even we do.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 9:55 am
accelefine is just doing the same thing VA does - making stuff up and declaring the evidence supports it.![]()
![]()
Take it up with VA. He seems to have his own personal 'meaning' for it.Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:01 pmQM being grounded on antirealism. First, you seem to be misunderstanding what antirealism generally means.
He's just going to avoid having an actual interaction of substance with you. His 'Age* is showing.Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:01 pmQM being grounded on antirealism. First, you seem to be misunderstanding what antirealism generally means.
Sorry can't help you there. The anecdote goes like this: after every debate, Bohr and Einstein went to the pub, and they said the following. "Yes we may disagree on all these issues, but we are in a total agreement on one thing, we must formulate the laws of QM in a way that will forever escape the puny female brain, especially that of accelafine. Luckily, this is no difficult matter."accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:12 pmHow about mansplaining it to me then little man. I'm just a dumb woman. I don't understand these big, manly conepts. My brain might explode.
Awww. Pweeze.
Hey, let's not insult women. It doesn't matter what sex or gender accelefine is. Who knows if it's vegetariantaxidermy or not, or cares. Or if VT was actually a woman. We have Wizard, male, with a similar to accelefine, if more blabbly, posting style. We have VA, male, Iambiguous, male. Idiocy is not restricted to the other X chromosome. Nor is biliousness.Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:21 pm Sorry can't help you there. The anecdote goes like this: after every debate, Bohr and Einstein went to the pub, and they said the following. "Yes we may disagree on all these issues, but we are in a total agreement on one thing, we must formulate the laws of QM in a way that will forever escape the puny female brain, especially that of accelafine. Luckily, this is no difficult matter."
Felt like my last comment was unnecessarily harsh so I removed it. Anyway, couldn't agree with you more.
Oh, dear. Then mine was very harsh. But anyway...Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:21 pmFelt like my last comment was unnecessarily harsh so I removed it. Anyway, couldn't agree with you more.
The article lost me on page one where it seems to equate antirealism with instrumentalism, and also calls instrumentalism a dogma.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:24 pmOh, dear. Then mine was very harsh. But anyway...Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:21 pmFelt like my last comment was unnecessarily harsh so I removed it. Anyway, couldn't agree with you more.
I got curious about the link in the OP that VA throws in to support his and Bohr's antirealism. But I, perhaps unlike VA, actually started reading that article and I'm not sure he's actually supporting Bohr and his antirealism.
As far as I can tell the writer is a realist, the article contains criticism of anti-realism, while presenting it with great respect - though sometimes also mocking it - and includes suggestions for how a new realism, integrating the criticism of antirealism can be found/formulated.
I don't think he reads what he posts. He just makes assumptions based on a quick skim and the title at best.
It was a very challenging read, yes, and clearly a philosopher writing not a scientist.
I think instrumentalism is a philosophy, though it's a bit of an anti-ontological philosophy.Instrumentalism is a lack of any philosophy. Antirealism is a philosophy.
Well, you can be dogmatic about not claiming anything about ontology and dogmatically criticizing others for such claiming.You can't ground something on nothing.
You can't be dogmatic about nothing.
It's a minority, though a significant one. And antirealism is still a minority position in physics, also.And again: a Copenhagen interpretation that identifies the observer as the human mind, is just an unproven interpretation. It's like the first thing people consider when they think about QM.
No it's not anti-ontological either. Instrumentalism is simply the lack of any philosophy.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 4:25 pm I think instrumentalism is a philosophy, though it's a bit of an anti-ontological philosophy.