Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:42 am Nobody is placing theory at odds with "objective reality"

It certainly seems that way, given that this whole thing kicked off because I said that qm was "discovered to be true" and VA retorted that it's not a mind-independent fact.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:46 am It certainly seems that way, given that this whole thing kicked off because I said that qm was "discovered to be true" and VA retorted that it's not a mind-independent fact.

It seems that way because you believe (a priori) that facts are mind-idependent, but that's not true.

Facts are epistemic/mental constructs. They aren't "out there" waiting to be discovered. Facts are mental constructs used and invented by humans to navigate the world.

In any case, I reject all that.

I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that scientists and physicists aren't interested in probing into how real, objective, mind-independent reality works. I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that quantum physics is taken by most relevant scientists to only be some sort of "mind dependent fact" rather than it touching on things that happen in reality even when no one is looking.

Most quantum physicists definitely think this stuff happens even when no one is looking.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:50 am In any case, I reject all that.

I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that scientists and physicists aren't interested in probing into how real, objective, mind-independent reality works. I reject the idea, presented without evidence, that quantum physics is taken by most relevant scientists to only be some sort of "mind dependent fact" rather than it touching on things that happen in reality even when no one is looking.

So you basically reject quantum indeterminacy and the measurement problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

You want to be an ontologist who ontologizes e.g a philosopher.
You don't want to be an epistemologist who epistemologizes e.g a physicist.

You want to escape your own mental prison and access reality directly. Good luck!

Quantum indeterminacy is a statement about objective reality (at least in most quantum schools of thought, not all I suppose).

Wave function collapse, which is what the measurement problem is about, is a statement about objective reality. Not necessarily a TRUE statement, but it's talking about reality.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:56 am Quantum indeterminacy is a statement about objective reality (at least in most quantum schools of thought, not all I suppose).

Wave function collapse, which is what the measurement problem is about, is a statement about objective reality. Not necessarily a TRUE statement, but it's talking about reality.

Well then by that criterion any and all statement are statements about reality.

Some statements about reality just aren't true.

So it begs the question: What do you mean by a "true statement"? Which makes a statement "true"?

VA Wrote: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Is that statement true or false?

Can anyone reading this thread say whether the OP statement is true or false.

Thanks in advance.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:59 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:56 am Quantum indeterminacy is a statement about objective reality (at least in most quantum schools of thought, not all I suppose).

Wave function collapse, which is what the measurement problem is about, is a statement about objective reality. Not necessarily a TRUE statement, but it's talking about reality.

Well then by that criterion any and all statement are statements about reality.

Some statements about reality just aren't true.

So it begs the question: What do you mean by a "true statement"? Which makes a statement "true"?

This is as opposed to the idea that quantum physics is "just a useful model", rather than telling us about stuff that is really happening.

Because you certainly can have that. You can have useful models that give useful predictions, and the people using the models fully know and accept that their models are entirely untethered to reality.

I just don't think that's what's happening in science at large or quantum physics, and I base that partially on having read many, many words by the scientists themselves, who talk about "truth" with no qualms. They don't clarify the truths they talk about it by saying "oh but these are only mind dependent truths." It's clear they're looking for Truth, things that are true even when no one is looking.

This is also as opposed to the idea that the stuff of quantum mechanics only happens when someone, a human, is looking.

Again, you can certainly have that, you can find physicists who think like that, but it's fringe. Most physicists think the double slit experiment would play out the same way if you set up the experiment carefully in a rocket ship and launched the rocket ship away from the earth, never to be seen again.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:00 am

VA Wrote: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Is that statement true or false?

Can anyone reading this thread say whether the OP statement is true or false.

Only when you're looking at it

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:06 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:59 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:56 am Quantum indeterminacy is a statement about objective reality (at least in most quantum schools of thought, not all I suppose).

Wave function collapse, which is what the measurement problem is about, is a statement about objective reality. Not necessarily a TRUE statement, but it's talking about reality.

Well then by that criterion any and all statement are statements about reality.

Some statements about reality just aren't true.

So it begs the question: What do you mean by a "true statement"? Which makes a statement "true"?

This is as opposed to the idea that quantum physics is "just a useful model", rather than telling us about stuff that is really happening.

No, there's no "opposition"; or tension between the ideas.

Quantum Physcs allows us to predict measurements. If you take a measurement the result is going to be so and so.

It's a useful way of managing our own expectations. Even if it says absolutely nothing about the inner workings of reality.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:06 am Because you certainly can have that. You can have useful models that give useful predictions, and the people using the models fully know and accept that their models are entirely untethered to reality.

Well, of course. Good physicists absolutely know and accept that but most people don't. Most people assume that because the model works; and because they are using the best available model - they assume that the model's internal workings (spacetimes, curvatures manifolds) etc. are things which exist out there - outside of minds - objectively.

That's called the mind-projection fallacy.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:06 am I just don't think that's what's happening in science at large or quantum physics, and I base that partially on having read many, many words by the scientists themselves, who talk about "truth" with no qualms.

They don't clarify the truths they talk about it by saying "oh but these are only mind dependent truths." It's clear they're looking for Truth, things that are true even when no one is looking.

Sure. Those are the scientists who have bought into the "searching for Truth" narrative. Such scientists may even invent better and better useful models. Models which they themselves believe to be "True" and "corresponding to reality".

But they are simply deluded due to their lack of philosophical (un)grounding.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:06 am This is also as opposed to the idea that the stuff of quantum mechanics only happens when someone, a human, is looking.

No it isn't. The idea of quantim indeterminacy is really really simple.

There is either beer in my fridge; or there is no beer in my fridge.

Since I don't know which one all possibilities are in superposition. They are both true AND they are both false. Until I open the fridge and look. All the possible permutations of the system are possile observations!

Epistemology, not ontology.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:06 am Again, you can certainly have that, you can find physicists who think like that, but it's fringe. Most physicists think the double slit experiment would play out the same way if you set up the experiment carefully in a rocket ship and launched the rocket ship away from the earth, never to be seen again.

They are welcome to think and speak like that. But how would they know the outcome of such an experiment if nobody observed it?

Till they confirm; or disconfirm the result - it's just a hypothesis/prediction.

That's your world view, I can respect it, but it's not how most physicists see it.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:30 am That's your world view, I can respect it, but it's not how most physicists see it.

Then most physicists are confused and delusional in mistaking their models for reality. It's fine - no harm done.

Let them be useful idiots who keep "searching for Truth" - their results/findings are still practically useful to society.

I mean, you have to believe in Truth (or God) in order to search for them, right? Otherwise why would you keep looking?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:07 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:00 am

VA Wrote: The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

Is that statement true or false?

Can anyone reading this thread say whether the OP statement is true or false.

Only when you're looking at it

Thank you for your reply.

But I was rather hoping for a true or false answer.

It is true that only when you are looking at the moon does the moon exist, or is it false that the moon does not exist when it is not being looked at?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:42 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:07 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:00 am

Is that statement true or false?

Can anyone reading this thread say whether the OP statement is true or false.

Only when you're looking at it

Thank you for your reply.

But I was rather hoping for a true or false answer.

It is true that only when you are looking at the moon does the moon exist, or is it false that the moon does not exist when it is not being looked at?

VA thinks so. A few other people do. I don't think it ceases to exist when we stop looking, I'm sure most others here don't.

VA seems to think the modern understanding of quantum physics makes his case for him. I think that that's not what most quantum physicists would agree with.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 10:05 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:42 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:07 am
Only when you're looking at it

Thank you for your reply.

But I was rather hoping for a true or false answer.

It is true that only when you are looking at the moon does the moon exist, or is it false that the moon does not exist when it is not being looked at?

VA thinks so. A few other people do. I don't think it ceases to exist when we stop looking, I'm sure most others here don't.

VA seems to think the modern understanding of quantum physics makes his case for him. I think that that's not what most quantum physicists would agree with.

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. I'll do some more thinking on this.