Philosophy Now Forum

Blaggard wrote:EPR contradicted by Bells Theorem, and it would all get a little muddy trying to discuss it.

Some of us will give it a go.

Blaggard wrote:I could suggest people look at Bells-Aspect and read from there, the trouble is if you never really got this video, that lab experiment is going to be mathematically incomprehensible too.

What is it about appreciating that particular lab experiment that makes understanding the maths easier?

Blaggard wrote:But let me cut it short. Yes Copenhagen is a flawed interpretation, it is well known, it is only as flawed as all the others though.

What others? Why are they all equal? Do you not think that Copenhagen is epistemological, that it makes no ontological claims, therefore it isn't wrong.

Blaggard wrote:Don't you think it's a little more healthy though when someone like Feynman, a Nobel prize winner and oft touted foreman of quantum mechanics, stands up and honestly admits he doesn't understand it.

Yes. Can you explain what he didn't understand?

Honestly and I mean no disrespect there is no way you are going to understand the Bells-Aspect experiment, without knowing the maths. And that is not meant as a jibe, it is really not easy maths.

But if you insist I can try. Suffice to say this is pretty difficult mathematical formulation. If you insist it would behoove me to try.

Feynman didn't understand the precise nature of how something could be a wave and a particle, and how the 2 slit experiment would produce such contradictions. And no I am not going to explain that, ffs look it up. It's hard enough me not knowing how it works. Try Feynman lectures google it watch it, watch them and stop expecting people to do all your work for you. I am tired of posting links no one reads, get off your fat ass, and do your own work.

No offense but for the last 5 months all I have got is I'll be fucked if I can watch links from everyone here.. Wa, wa,wa it hurts, I can't watch something that is longer than a minute it would fucking kill me, and then if I did I am such a dull fucking mushroom I would have to understand something and that would kill me.

I aint posting links any more no one reads them, you all complain it's too hard to have an attention span, and then where are we, in no mans land with a bunch of lazy people with the attention span of a humming bird, talking down to people who don't have that. It's painful, and I'll be damned if I am ever going to post anything, who's entire world is I can't learn unless you explain it to me in 5s, and or, I see a link that is only 1s long. Not going to happen. Never ask me to post a link if I ever do no one will watch it, never ask me to quote anything no one will read it. Unless this takes more than 1s to explain and no one will read, visualise actually care. You people are lazy. That shit gets old for the 9 millionth time. You people don't want to understand any subject unless it can be explained in 5 words or less, and it can't so it's a waste of time posting any link.

You want the truth but it seems to me, when it's linked you don't have the time to bother reading it. If you want to know something about an extremely complex subject that takes a life time to learn, in any sort of depth, take a shore interlude. Take a break have a Kit Kat, hell read links. Couldn't hurt could it?

Blaggard wrote:Honestly and I mean no disrespect there is no way you are going to understand the Bells-Aspect experiment, without knowing the maths. And that is not meant as a jibe, it is really not easy maths.

But if you insist I can try. Suffice to say this is pretty difficult mathematical formulation. If you insist it would behoove me to try.

I'm not going to insist, but if maths is about physics, it is about things that actually happen. I understand Bell's theorem, at least as it is presented in English, and I appreciate what demonstrably happens in experiments that involve entanglement. What I don't get is that you apparently believe there are things that happen in the real world, that cannot be described in a natural language. I will gladly watch any link you suggest that shows something happening that I cannot describe.

Read this get back to me.

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_The ... y_Math.htm

I'll believe anyone can read anything when I bloody see it.

Incidentally the link which was posted by UK says this but in a more demonstrative manner, and none of it is that controversial, where there is an issue is when he makes a priori assumptions that simply do not follow from what he has so far explained. but we'll get to that if you can understand the above, a simple explanation that contends with EPR in simple English and very simple maths. The EPRG, well that's quite fanciful tbh. It's worth a watch for the explanations, his conclusions are way off though and non sequiturs all.

Bell's-Aspect are the experiments and conclusions which are done on experimental data in actual experiments based on Bell's theorum. Bell's is a start the Aspect et al experiments progression, Aspect is a persons name by the way, are more conclusive, as are those that follow in the next couple of decades. Wise to look those up to, and when you have wise to read the papers written on them therein. Those are conveniently linked in that link too but:

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

And:

http://www.ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf

Some of those links don't work. I can contact Dr Chinese, his forum persona and ask for more current ones if needed.

The guy is actually a Professor of Physics not a Dr but meh semantics, the title is the same anyway well kind of you can add Professor and forgo Dr. when you are in your teaching faculty or department.

As someone opined recently you don't really know what you are talking about unless you can explain it simply, I think he did. Matter of opinion though.

I think though you do have to love the fact that Einstein and Schrödinger basically created quantum mechanics which was later enlarged by the Copenhagen et al schools, or at least were pivotal, hatsoff got to Planck, Lorentz, Leplace et al, and then spent their entire lives seeking to disprove it. That would never of happened in Rome or under Jesus... j/k

"My only regret is that I will not be alive to see the demise of quantum mechanics."

Erwin Schrödinger.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/ ... 36x332.jpg
Back row L-R: A Piccard, E Henriot, P Ehrenfest, Ed Herzen, Th. De Donder, E Schroedinger, E Verschaffelt, W Pauli, W Heisenberg, R. H Fowler, L Brillouin
Middle row L-R: P Debye, M Knudsen, W. L Bragg, H. A Kramers. P. A. M Dirac, A. H Compton, L. V. De Broglie, M Born, N Bohr
Front row: L-R: Angmeir, M Planck, M Curie, H. A Lorentz, A Einstein, P Langevin, Ch. E Guye, C. T. R Wilson, O. W Richardson

Solvay conference, posted it before but bears repeating.

Fifth Conference

Perhaps the most famous conference was the October 1927 Fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons, where the world's most notable physicists met to discuss the newly formulated quantum theory. The leading figures were Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein, disenchanted with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, remarked "God does not play dice". Bohr replied, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do". (See Bohr–Einstein debates.) 17 of the 29 attendees were or became Nobel Prize winners, including Marie Curie, who alone among them, had won Nobel Prizes in two separate scientific disciplines.[2]

This conference was also the culmination of the struggle between Einstein and the scientific realists, who wanted strict rules of scientific method as laid out by Charles Peirce and Karl Popper, versus Bohr and the instrumentalists, who wanted looser rules based on outcomes. Starting at this point, the instrumentalists won, instrumentalism having been seen as the norm ever since,[3] although the debate has been actively continued by the likes of Alan Musgrave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvay_Conference

I cant post the actual image but click on it. Silly antequated forum rules, presumably written when dinosaurs roamed the Earth and DX PC's were Gods.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong in these issues, let me make that clear, what clearly is the case though is no one, and I mean not one person is "right" as yet.

Blaggard wrote:Read this

You sound like Greylorn. (Henry Quirk is right. Must insert smiley.)

Blaggard wrote:get back to me.

So any theory that incorporates hidden variables, something which is 'true' about entangled pairs, must result in experimental observations that are commensurate with Bell's inequality; basically Alice and Bob should agree one third of the time at least. In fact, experiments show that they only agree about a quarter of the time, which is consistent with QM. One explanation for this is spooky action at a distance, basically, the universe works by magic. Another is that the photons are actually 'physically' entangled, which allows faster than light, 'non-local' communication. There are various ideas for how this might work, they generally come under the heading of aether theories, even John Bell was sympathetic. This is from Wikipedia, and therefore entirely accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

wikipedia wrote:John Bell in 1986, interviewed by Paul Davies in "The Ghost in the Atom" has suggested that an Aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster than light. He suggests Lorentz contraction is perfectly coherent, not inconsistent with relativity, and could produce an aether theory perfectly consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist" [p. 49]. Einstein found the non-aether theory simpler and more elegant, but Bell suggests that doesn't rule it out. Besides the arguments based on his interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bell also suggests resurrecting the aether because it is a useful pedagogical device. That is, many problems are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an aether.

Note that the aether was rejected on 'philosophical' grounds. Fundamentally, physics is about what happens and describing what happens mathematically. It doesn't matter to physics what it happens to, or even if it happens to anything. That is the point made by Newton's hypotheses non fingo, the positivism of Mach, the pragmatism of Dewey, James and Peirce; Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, the Vienna Circle; it goes all the way back to Anaximander. Philosophers of science have always been acutely aware of the difference between what happens and what is.

Read this:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm
and get back to me.

Christ that was a waste of time.

Ok nm I give up.

You didn't read it did you. I get it. Or if you did you didn't really understand it despite the really, really simple English and grade school maths. I am wasting my time.

I tried you have to give me that I did try but all I got was insults for my pains. Well fuck you then Monsieur take thine clown shoes and wear them.

John Clucking bell in fucking 196 whatever, this is just such a waste of fucking time. You people are just unbelievable. This isn't even about ether it's not about ftl that has been convincingly disproven by experiment long ago in a time far far away, for God's ferking sake, you people are so out of date you make Newton look modern, you don't read anything, you don't understand anything, you ask questions from 1898, state things that were already decided 100 years ago. It's like talking to a mushroom. Do you even know what Bell's inequalities refers to, or are you going to bang on about Aether or ether, which has abso fricking lutely nothing to do with anything. Shit I'm bored. You bother to take the time to explain something and the mushrooms involved are still on science from pre 1890. It's just clown shoes, it's silly and inane.

I'm out. Waste of ferking time, Michelson would probably approve but Morley or should I say Marley is still hanging on to his chains.

Honestly in philosophy yeah when you learn anything about science, do you just learn stuff that is so old that it's fossilized remains could probably have been dug up in a layer of sedimentary rock.

Modern physics, it kind of passed you by didn't it like the rest of the 20th century. It's the 21st century, keep up. Come on put your back into it please.

And no offense but if your scientific knowledge is antiquated and old fashioned the sort of thing someone might of learned in the late 19th century and the early 20th, why do you think physics is going to care? You have to do some study, you have to read some links, you have to know the subject, you have to make some effort, you have to learn how to ask the pertinent questions. People don't say that for a laugh so you can randomly google some old shiz, they say it because it aint rocket science, that is easy, this is an endeavour for a life time, to even glimpse some sort of understanding even remotely, it kinda should be at least more than a lazy google a smoke and a pancake----> worlds biggest authority on something Nobel prize winners don't even understand. Do you see how that might become slightly irritating to anyone in science for the 9 millionth time? Not me per se, just anyone who has spent 4 or more years studying a subject only to be told by someone who googled something on a alzy saturday afternoon, how he should think about something he spent 4 or more years studying?

Put you thinking hat on, this subject is not for the casual gamer, this is cereal I am super cereal, Manbearpig is real.

Your asking meaningless questions, it's not really anything to do with what I posted, and forgive me if I don't answer them, but they are not on topic, why should I?

I sound like who now, who cares.

So any theory that incorporates hidden variables, something which is 'true' about entangled pairs, must result in experimental observations that are commensurate with Bell's inequality; basically Alice and Bob should agree one third of the time at least. In fact, experiments show that they only agree about a quarter of the time, which is consistent with QM. One explanation for this is spooky action at a distance, basically, the universe works by magic. Another is that the photons are actually 'physically' entangled, which allows faster than light, 'non-local' communication. There are various ideas for how this might work, they generally come under the heading of aether theories, even John Bell was sympathetic. This is from Wikipedia, and therefore entirely accurate:

Suffice to say just no. That was not even worth the time to read. No offense, but you really didn't get what he was saying at all the Professor there. Einstein was sympathetic to Aether theories and ether theories, who cares?

Wikiing an article that has nothing to do with anything does not make something accurate, it makes it a non sequitur no matter how accurate you might think the details are, or indeed they might be, or indeed... that has nothing to do with anything at all in the place where the science now lies.

Blaggard wrote:Christ that was a waste of time.

Ok nm I give up.

You didn't read it did you. I get it. Or if you did you didn't really understand it despite the really, really simple English and grade school maths. I am wasting my time.

Fair enough, Blaggard, what didn't I understand?

Blaggard wrote:... So let me just say I advise you watch the video but I know there are contentions with the interpretations made on interpretations therein. ...

Pardon? I posted the link, why would you think I hadn't watched it.

If you remotely get why then you are where science is now. ...

Nope, I found it very difficult to understand and to be honest have very little interest in such stuff anymore. but just thought the lecture would appeal to those who understand and apparently you agree.

Philosophically I'm pretty much only interested in Phenomenology(whatever that is yet?), Logic and Politics. For me, with a few caveats, Kant nailed it with respect to reason, ontological metaphysics, empiricism and rationalism. With respect to Physics I'll leave it up to them to reconcile their loss of something being absolutely true and the creation of a metaphysics that reconciles their two successful apparently incommensurable theories, as personally I'm an instrumentalist with respect to Physics, as long as it works and keeps producing technology I think it matters little what stories are made up about whats going on in the noumena.

... So I will just say, yes very good points, and you are missing some very good points. ...

Since I don't understand pretty much any of it I'd agree but then I don't think Physics has much to say to me, philosophically that is, not that what it says isn't interesting but I just find it inapplicable to the issues of life that concern me.

I am not saying Copenhagen is right but you are missing some more intrinsically important interpretation issues out when you make these a priori claims. What you wont be told is that this guy has no more idea what philosophical issue will resolve all the paradoxes, regardless of his claims. If he could do what he claims he'd of just won 5 Nobel prizes and a chufty badge. So we must remember he doesn't have a clue either. Pinch of salt.

I've studied Philosophy, I have a fair idea of what Reason can say or not about phenomena. So thanks for the advice but there really is no need.

... Feynman didn't say I don't understand quantum mechanics for a laugh to make everyone feel better. ...

Who thought he did?

He didn't say shut up an calculate is my favourite interpretation just because it means you look at results not interpretation issues. He said it because he doesn't understand it, no one does. Let's not be polite about it we are out of our depth. So far out of our depth that it's not even funny. These interpretation issues are philosophical problems though. We know that the science works, we don't know how and why the system does what it does. The dirty little secret is not what QM doesn't tell you. It's that it fully admits the interpretation issues in philosophy are flawed, it however as science must do can only tell you what happens, not why or how as the theory now stands.

Philosophically I've not understood why people are so het-up about this as for me a much more interesting issue is that in Physics 'truth' has been replaced by 'only probably true' but no-one appears to want to discuss this?

With respect to the above, I think in the history of science this just points to the time being one of those when scientists are going to have to become philosophers and start to reexamine their axioms. I guess we'll just have to await another Einstein or Feynman.

End of the day though it's nice to see scientists standing up and going wtf, this is not right. That probably doesn't go on much at university level education but just about everyone who persues a career is indeed saying wtf, that's just weird. Welcome to modern physics, we are all confused, get over it.

Never had a problem with it as even thirty odd years ago A-level physics teachers were talking about 'wavicles' and Physics having no idea about whats going on.

Don't you think it's a little more healthy though when someone like Feynman, a Nobel prize winner and oft touted foreman of quantum mechanics, stands up and honestly admits he doesn't understand it. Gotta be progress when the luminaries in the 20th and now the 21st century are all being honest about their lack of knowledge. 500 years ago some man in a dress was telling us absolutes because some other man in a dress said so. It's progress methinks.

Maybe, personally I think scientists have missed their chance and religion is back on the cards.

In that case if you have no interest in it and can not understand it who cares?

I said people should watch it I said his conclusions were non sequiturs and I gave an article explaining why, but apparently you don't care and are bored of it.

I think we are done, you don't give a shit where science actually is or understand it, and I don't care to explain it over and over again to someone who neither cares nor understands it remotely. No wonder philosophy is dying.

I mean do you really expect to make any impact on anything these days. Or is it all talk and no walk. You don't care, you don't remotely understand modern science. And you wonder why science doesn't care. You're just wasting their time perhaps with this laziness?

I don't know anything about something but now you know that, please don't criticise me, I might then have to actually know something about a subject, to care, to learn what it is I am criticising, to get of my fat Hegel ridden ass, what I so willingly opine on but actually know nothing about you should agree with, pardon me while I fall asleep. What a bunch of con men you are.

You're moribund aren't you going through the final death throes and lambasting those who are eager to know to learn to discuss actual real world things, it's all too hard now, you know you are the last refrain, or are you? Whichever is the case Good luck with that indolent pathos. No one cares and you certainly don't. Quid pro quo.

religion is back on the cards, but then I don't remotely understand any of science so I can say that, I don't know why I say that, I don't remotely understand the science, I think 30 years ago which is practically the stone age I might of had some remote idea but now pfft can't be assed. What lazy hypocritical sack of shit you are. People like you disgust me, you aren't philosophers of anything, you just have a jumbo leather backed chair sitting nobody smoking a pipe and lecturing the proletariate on former glories at breakfast and lunch and perchance if time is right when you can be assed to pull yourself out of the but cracks you have dug so deep in your arm chair generalling on past history that is antiquated an out of date, off perchance for a kip a light supper and bed before you waste peoples time discussing how big an authority you are on a science that now is redundant ten years on, 20 it is just plain wrong and 30 nothing to do with science. You're I think old in your mind set, clueless in your knowledge base, your indolent, you're worthless and you are redundant. But yet one smoking a pipe must redolantly opine on his glory days in the distant past of nowhere near where science is now.

Who cares indeed for old grandpa the simple and ancient minded person who lives in the past.

dude last 30 years, wake up, last 30 years, it passed you by didn't it, science moves too fast for the doddering old timer now. Dude, wake up. I think he's dead.

Blaggard, there isn't any point berating philosophy for failing to do something it doesn't pretend to do. It is not science. Science is fundamentally empirical. Empiricism itself is a philosophical point of view, it is the belief that we can only know what we can see. Everything that science sees and measures is a fact. It is 'true' that any phenomenon that is objectively observable is objectively observable, philosophy is not in dispute with that, it is not a challenge to physics. If a physicist explains what happens, or quantifies it, they are doing physics. If they give a reason why, they are doing philosophy.

I'm not ciriticising philosophy for doing philsophy. I am cirticising it for having any ground to criticise science without having the remotest understanding of it.

Does that sound fair?

I've said this now a dozen times, you'd of thought with your powerful ability to spot mind numbingly obvious statements and that whole logic thing you have going on with that thing where you use language, to, do, that, thing, where you make valid arguments out of valid prepostions or propositions, this would have sunk in by now.

Sadly though apparently you haven't quite got it yet. If you want to criticise anything you have to have a well grounded understanding in it, if you don't people will think you are a bit dim and a little bless: aw he thinks he's Scientist.

Apparently this is the worlds biggest and most difficult thing to understand ever on Earth. Let me adequately prepare for the 13th time someone makes some vacuous uninformed opinion from the ether though before you do it again. Because man everyone needs a break and a kit kat from that no? I don't mind people not knowing, what I do mind is people claiming something they know nothing about and then stating something or posting or linking something they know nothing about as if it is amazing without and let me make this clear, actually making any point at all any argument relevant to phsyics. You can state whatever you like but please do not say science is shit on the basis of you not knowing anything about it. Yes of course it is shit, it's biased, unfair, driven by money, and wholly not always on the right track. It is well known. Keep in mind though, it is known, it's why a career in science is still viable, kill science, eat it's heart, that is science. Show the dicks why they are morons. And then stand on a pile of scientist skulls whilst soaking up the lamentations of their women, like you are breathing in mana from heaven, that is what is good in science life.

Is it fair that someone needs to know the first thing about a subject, before he becomes able to judge it on a basis that is apt, because I would hate to think this was a non sequitur, and do feel free to explain where it is if so, it is of course your forté and something I presume you know much about.

Discuss whatever you like, say whatever you like, that's what forums are all about. Expect to be picked up on dumb arguments though...

Blaggard wrote:I'm not ciriticising philosophy for doing philsophy. I am cirticising it for having any ground to criticise science without having the remotest understanding of it.

Does that sound fair?

Yes, Blaggard, that sounds fair and were it not for the fact that my previous post said what it did, it would be fair. If you believe that I have written anything that is remotely critical of science, please cite it and I will qualify or retract it. Even better, if you think there is something that I don't understand about modern science, point out my ignorance, I'm always happy to learn.

I didn't criticise you, you just jumped in on the good ship folly plop and marched on in the sort of fashion you people usually do waffling away without really understanding a damn thing.

Look I'm just tired of explaining this shit, that no one reads, understands and then goes on to wax lyrical on how big of an: I am, they are on something I don't really believe in either, aka Science like they are the next big fucking pleb in Jesus shorts. We know it's shit, get over it, it's not that fucking amazing any more. Science is a massive turd it's what makes it a floater not a sinker. Get on with philosophy already there's important work yet to be done, stop attacking a subject you haven't known the remotest thing about in 30 years, when there are more important things to do. Science is ok, you sorted it, well sort of, we're fine stfu.

What annoys me is not people want to criticise anything, hell science is one big ocean of criticism, it's the daft dull minded I know and you can't dimwittery of the laymen that starts to grate your nads. Yes we're all shit, yes this is how science operates by being shit and rubbish and always wrong and all that shit, will you move on now, stop smashing cotton mills and do something that actual will matter you dumb Luddite plebs, because po mo is so oh no. Everywhere you go it's science is wrong about this, and this and awful and we should all be on its back, it's been on it's own back for the last ten decades so much it's killed itself raped the corpse and then eaten the remains, do we really need to know that raping corpses of dead scientists is good now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

At least Conan knows what is best in science.

Once again:

uwot wrote:If you believe that I have written anything that is remotely critical of science, please cite it and I will qualify or retract it. Even better, if you think there is something that I don't understand about modern science, point out my ignorance, I'm always happy to learn.

Blaggard wrote:I didn't criticise you, you just jumped in on the good ship folly plop and marched on in the sort of fashion you people usually do waffling away without really understanding a damn thing.

Look I'm just tired of explaining this shit, that no one reads, understands and then goes on to wax lyrical on how big of an: I am, they are on something I don't really believe in either, aka Science like they are the next big fucking pleb in Jesus shorts. We know it's shit, get over it, it's not that fucking amazing any more. Science is a massive turd it's what makes it a floater not a sinker. Get on with philosophy already there's important work yet to be done, stop attacking a subject you haven't known the remotest thing about in 30 years, when there are more important things to do. Science is ok, you sorted it, well sort of, we're fine stfu.

What annoys me is not people want to criticise anything, hell science is one big ocean of criticism, it's the daft dull minded I know and you can't dimwittery of the laymen that starts to grate your nads. Yes we're all shit, yes this is how science operates by being shit and rubbish and always wrong and all that shit, will you move on now, stop smashing cotton mills and do something that actual will matter you dumb Luddite plebs, because po mo is so oh no. Everywhere you go it's science is wrong about this, and this and awful and we should all be on its back, it's been on it's own back for the last ten decades so much it's killed itself raped the corpse and then eaten the remains, do we really need to know that raping corpses of dead scientists is good now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

At least Conan knows what is best in science.

I'm not sure why you think I have criticised anything you personally have said that is strictly scientific tbh. But I think the above was clear enough uwot. I criticised the person in the video, and perhaps by implication Arizing UK who presumably believes what that person said. Although again i didn't even criticise his science, he hasn't made any science based statement per se. I criticise the link by adjunct though, and I perhaps wrongly perhaps rightly I don't know, assume the link was posted to make a point about science which I then criticise also. It could become a little wearysome though if we're going to indulge in pure semantics and not the subject itself and the context there in, but if you must, it is a philosophy forum.

To be brutally honest so far the only persons "science" I have criticised is blags, and that is science only very loosely I think, it was about science we can say that much.

Oh and Cerveny but I am sure he is a grown up and can take the usual scientific reposte.