Philosophy Now Forum

There are number of people, who even after the nuclear bomb, and the successes at CERN, still have lingering doubts about Quantum Mechanics. They feel, in some way, that there is something about it that is wrong or "off", that needs to be fixed. These people are especially found in cranks and crackpots on the internet who claim that have built a "zero point energy device" in their garage, or other people on the same quack spectrum. In rare cases, "Objectivists" (people who follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand) will reject quantum mechanics.

At this point we have a very good idea of the usual reason for this rejection and suspicion. In many cases, a person will complain that Quantum Mechanics does not provide a mechanism for how matter, energy, and mass function. This lack of a mechanism is then held up as a token that justifies their doubt and suspicion. In a twist of irony, this complaint is actually solidly founded and completely true. Quantum Mechanics, indeed, does not provide a mechanism for the properties of changing matter. But in an even more painful, stinging irony, it turns out physics is under no obligation to provide such a mechanism in the first place!

The social function of science, the duty of science, is to produce a theory about a system in the world and how it changes through time. The theory is then considered "correct/true" when its predictions perfectly match the data measured in the real world. Scientific theories can be used to predict a system's behavior, which is probably the primary application of a scientific theory. Pathological applications follow only afterwards, such as inventing new technologies.

In the vast majority of cases, a theory which predicts how a system changes through time is stated in the form of a differential equation. In the case of QM, the theory is stated as the Schrodinger Equation, which is itself a (surprise-surprise) differential equation.



In discussions involving science and scientific theories, the principle point of the conversation can be missed or confused, due to the word "mechanism" being so hopelessly abstract. The following examples should make the idea more concrete. If a group of engineers is constructing an engine or device of some sort from a blue print, in that situation, it is a necessary, inescapable fact that everyone in the room must understand the mechanism by which that device functions. There is no way around it. If you build something, you must know the mechanism of its function.

Fortunately, for the theory of Quantum Mechanics, people do not go around constructing universes. But let's be clear, if human beings did go around making universes, then everyone who did so, would require knowledge of the mechanism of those universes. Physics describes a universe's behavior, it does not explain why it acts that way. Science has performed its duty, and completed all its obligations after having handed you an equation that describes how your system will change. That's it. Period. The scientists can hand you an equation that describes how your system changes, and then those scientists can then leave the room triumphant. Whatever you do with that fact at a later time, is not (technically) science anymore, but rather engineering and invention.

Kuz

Excellent post. I read every word looking for more.
Sad is it not that Schrodingers cat. is looked on with blind incomprehension.
Defining its Q state taxes the limited usage of mind in most to coma.
'
the observer and the undefined. passes over heads like a thunderstorm.

python.
the cat is dead!!
no its just resting.
REsting? its nailed to the floor in upright position.
nah is just had a bad mousing day.
it is dead.. passed on. gone to meet its maker. shrugged off its mortal coil if it were not nailed to floor it would be in you trashcan at back of shop.

i opened box and as an observer found a dead cat.
1 pound i paid.. i want a refund.
sorry sir. no refunds.

aaaaaaarg

Are they your own words or just copy pasted Kuznetzova ?

Kuznetzova wrote:There are number of people, who even after the nuclear bomb, and the successes at CERN, still have lingering doubts about Quantum Mechanics. They feel, in some way, that there is something about it that is wrong or "off", that needs to be fixed. These people are especially found in cranks and crackpots on the internet who claim that have built a "zero point energy device" in their garage, or other people on the same quack spectrum. In rare cases, "Objectivists" (people who follow the philosophy of Ayn Rand) will reject quantum mechanics.

At this point we have a very good idea of the usual reason for this rejection and suspicion. In many cases, a person will complain that Quantum Mechanics does not provide a mechanism for how matter, energy, and mass function. This lack of a mechanism is then held up as a token that justifies their doubt and suspicion. In a twist of irony, this complaint is actually solidly founded and completely true. Quantum Mechanics, indeed, does not provide a mechanism for the properties of changing matter. But in an even more painful, stinging irony, it turns out physics is under no obligation to provide such a mechanism in the first place!

The social function of science, the duty of science, is to produce a theory about a system in the world and how it changes through time. The theory is then considered "correct/true" when its predictions perfectly match the data measured in the real world. Scientific theories can be used to predict a system's behavior, which is probably the primary application of a scientific theory. Pathological applications follow only afterwards, such as inventing new technologies.

In the vast majority of cases, a theory which predicts how a system changes through time is stated in the form of a differential equation. In the case of QM, the theory is stated as the Schrodinger Equation, which is itself a (surprise-surprise) differential equation.



In discussions involving science and scientific theories, the principle point of the conversation can be missed or confused, due to the word "mechanism" being so hopelessly abstract. The following examples should make the idea more concrete. If a group of engineers is constructing an engine or device of some sort from a blue print, in that situation, it is a necessary, inescapable fact that everyone in the room must understand the mechanism by which that device functions. There is no way around it. If you build something, you must know the mechanism of its function.

Fortunately, for the theory of Quantum Mechanics, people do not go around constructing universes. But let's be clear, if human beings did go around making universes, then everyone who did so, would require knowledge of the mechanism of those universes. Physics describes a universe's behavior, it does not explain why it acts that way. Science has performed its duty, and completed all its obligations after having handed you an equation that describes how your system will change. That's it. Period. The scientists can hand you an equation that describes how your system changes, and then those scientists can then leave the room triumphant. Whatever you do with that fact at a later time, is not (technically) science anymore, but rather engineering and invention.

As far as we are aware no science, now or in the future, will talk about purpose. Once we talk purpose we are no longer doing science. On this basis I am not sure how this is related to quantum mechanics.

My understanding is that the quantum element does provide a mechanism for prediction. But not a prediction in the classical sense.

You can probably help me out here, but as far as I understand the Schrodinger equation combines both quantum and classical predictions. The classical element is the easy bit. We can and do predict change over time. The problem starts when we combine the purely mathematical power of prediction.In the quantum world we end up with a mathematics explanation for change over time.

For example, when we ask, "Where is a particle at any point in time?" We don't get a straight answer. What we get is a mathematical answer, when in fact what we really want a classical answer to the problem of position.

Ginkgo wrote: As far as we are aware no science, now or in the future, will talk about purpose. Once we talk purpose we are no longer doing science. On this basis I am not sure how this is related to quantum mechanics.

In modern biology, we have an unusual situation in which we have both a theory and a mechanism that tells you how it works. Charles Darwin knew that organisms inherited traits from their parents, and that these traits had variation in a population. He published his theory, completely clueless on how this was actually happening in terms of a mechanism. Today we know that traits are stored in DNA strands, and they are inherited by offspring because there are cellular mechanisms that copy those strands. As I mentioned in the original post, armed with a mechanism you could technically construct an organism. Greg Ventor constructed a bacterium in a lab which had no parents. It was a Frankenstein Bacteria, cobbled together from fragments of dead bacteria. This is not quite building an organism from scratch, but the bacterium came alive and lived just like our theory said it would.

In quantum mechanics, we have nothing like this whatsoever. We literally don't know what is "going on" down there. There is a famous picture of a chalkboard that Richard Feynman had covered with equations. And up in the corner it says "What I cannot build, I do not understand." I think this quote has been hijacked by many people who think he was saying something mystical and guru-like. I think he was genuinely trying to communicate a salient point to the people in the room. He was saying what I'm saying. That in physics we have theories about what systems do given by these equations, but we have no bloody idea about why systems act like this at all. They just do. We don't understand it. In this context, then, nobody understands it.

jinx wrote:Are they your own words or just copy pasted Kuznetzova ?

See number 9 and number 17 in this list here,

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Kuznetzova wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: As far as we are aware no science, now or in the future, will talk about purpose. Once we talk purpose we are no longer doing science. On this basis I am not sure how this is related to quantum mechanics.

In modern biology, we have an unusual situation in which we have both a theory and a mechanism that tells you how it works. Charles Darwin knew that organisms inherited traits from their parents, and that these traits had variation in a population. He published his theory, completely clueless on how this was actually happening in terms of a mechanism. Today we know that traits are stored in DNA strands, and they are inherited by offspring because there are cellular mechanisms that copy those strands. As I mentioned in the original post, armed with a mechanism you could technically construct an organism. Greg Ventor constructed a bacterium in a lab which had no parents. It was a Frankenstein Bacteria, cobbled together from fragments of dead bacteria. This is not quite building an organism from scratch, but the bacterium came alive and lived just like our theory said it would.

In quantum mechanics, we have nothing like this whatsoever. We literally don't know what is "going on" down there. There is a famous picture of a chalkboard that Richard Feynman had covered with equations. And up in the corner it says "What I cannot build, I do not understand." I think this quote has been hijacked by many people who think he was saying something mystical and guru-like. I think he was genuinely trying to communicate a salient point to the people in the room. He was saying what I'm saying. That in physics we have theories about what systems do given by these equations, but we have no bloody idea about why systems act like this at all. They just do. We don't understand it. In this context, then, nobody understands it.

Hello again Kuznetzova

I'm not sure there is really a difference here.

We now have some understanding of how the mechanism of DNA works. So I guess we can say that we, "know what is going on down there".

In quantum mechanics we at least knows something weird is going down at the micro level. In both examples of biology and quantum mechanics I don't see how,"purpose" enters into it. I am assuming this what your are saying.

Ginkgo

In quantum mechanics we at least knows something weird is going down at the micro level. In both examples of biology and quantum mechanics I don't see how,"purpose" enters into it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

at the micro level?
the difference between dna grouping and q mechanic is like the distance to centauri group of stars at or level
pur·pose
[pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, pur·posed, pur·pos·ing.
noun
1.
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2.
an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3.
determination; resoluteness.
4.
the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5.
practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.

where do laws come from ?
think before you speak.

Hjarloprillar wrote:In quantum mechanics we at least knows something weird is going down at the micro level. In both examples of biology and quantum mechanics I don't see how,"purpose" enters into it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

at the micro level?
the difference between dna grouping and q mechanic is like the distance to centauri group of stars at or level
pur·pose
[pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, pur·posed, pur·pos·ing.
noun
1.
the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2.
an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3.
determination; resoluteness.
4.
the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5.
practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.

where do laws come from ?
think before you speak.

You seem to be suggesting there is exist some sort of gulf between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. You also seems to be suggesting there is a large gulf between understanding of DNA and quantum mechanics. If this is what you are saying then the current thinking is not along these lines.

The idea of the Schrodinger equation is that it is a differential equation that attempts to satisfy classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. This was the point Kurtz was making. Differential equations have application in biology, quantum mechanics, classical mechanics and many other things that attempts to measure the rate of change.

The equation has wide application because it is a functional understanding of change, as opposed to a purposeful analysis. If you want to know where the laws come from in this instance then we can say they are generated by a functional analysis.

We are veering dangerously towards a discussion about whether the equations are more real than the physical material which they depict. But I think a new thread would be needed for that.

Kuznetzova wrote:We are veering dangerously towards a discussion about whether the equations are more real than the physical material which they depict. But I think a new thread would be needed for that.

Hi Kuznetzova.

That's fine with me. I am still struggling with Berkeley's claim that the idea is the reality.

You post on ZFC looks really interesting. I hope to respond to it when I get time.


Ginkgo