"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"

[socrattus]

We have successful quantum mechanics, we don't have quantum philosophy.
"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"
/March 18, 2014 by Matthew Rave/
----.
The conventional wisdom among people who know a little bit of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics is weird.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Quantum mechanics is not weird. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are weird.
#
Quantum mechanics is an entirely mathematical theory.
It is arguably the most successful and powerful theory to come out of the 20th century.
Now, the mathematics of quantum mechanics are abstract and hard to visualize.
Nevertheless, people insist on trying to visualize anyway. And the result is all kinds of weirdness:
Schrödinger’s cat, wave-particle duality, the collapse of the wave function, many-worlds theory,
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These ideas are all mental hoops that people have jumped
through to explain some unambiguous, concrete, abstract linear algebra.
The math is just math, and it works; what it means is anyone’s guess.
#
Don’t like the many-worlds interpretation? Fine. Be a Copenhagenist.
Don’t like pilot waves? Great. Stick to your pet idea about superluminal communication.
Just remember that all of these competing interpretations make the exact same predictions,
so for all practical purposes they are the same.
Some people go so far as to say, just shut up and calculate.
-----
https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/03/18 ... mechanics/

[Iwannaplato]

Science is not just math; it's also about constructing models of reality. And these models are part of qm and used by scientists. These models help us comprehend what is real and what’s going on, both for scientists and the general public. While math plays a crucial role in these models, it's only one component. Science is also about understanding, interpreting, and explaining phenomena in ways that guide future exploration and discovery. And to say it has no philosophy is also confused. The models and ontology that physicists use to understand what they are finding is part of QM also and moves into philosophical areas. Quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in science, but calling it "just math" misses the point: the math is used to build and refine our models of reality.

The conventional wisdom among people who know a little bit of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics is weird.
The conventional wisdom is wrong

It's not just the sense that people who know a little have of it. It stunned most physicists as they discovered the data and struggled to understand what this meant about reality. And it continues to stun laypeople and professionals alike.

Richard Feynman: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
Niels Bohr: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
Albert Einstein: instead of quoting him I'll point out that he found some of QM so weird he even denied the data.
discomfort with the strange implications of his own quantum wave equation, particularly as seen in his famous cat paradox.
John Wheeler: "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it."
Max Born: "The quantum theory is absurd, but completely correct."
Roger Penrose: "Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense."

A great deal of research in science is driven by models/paradigms. People explore what seem to be the implications of the models. This is part of how humans think and choose lines of research out of the multitude of options that otherwise are near random. This has been extremely fruitful. To move from data to models and paradigms, which in this case and other cases include ontology, puts part of the enterprise of science in the realm of philosophy also. Apart from being useful, having the kinds of understanding at the model/paradigmatic level is a goal in and of itself in science, for both scientists and lay people and tends to have implications outside of science.

If's fine if someone wants to follow what David Mermin might have said: "Shut up and calculate!"

But there are philosophical issues in qm, the physicists themselves are creating ideas related to ontology, and they do this precisely because this is part of the methodology of science which is not just observations, data and mathematical formulas.

And the great thing is that doing one set of processes does not rule out doing the other: we don't have to choose, either as professionals or laypeople, between math and models/paradigmatic stands.

We can do both.

[Age]

Science is not just math; it's about constructing models of reality. And these models are part of qm and used by scientists. These models help us comprehend what is real and what’s going on, both for scientists and the general public. While math plays a crucial role in these models, it's only one component. Science is also about understanding, interpreting, and explaining phenomena in ways that guide future exploration and discovery. It's not just math. And to say it has no philosophy is also confused. The models and ontology that physicists use to understand what they are finding is part of QM also and moves into philosophical areas. Quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in science, but calling it "just math" misses the point: the math is used to build and refine our models of reality.

Science is also other things.

The conventional wisdom among people who know a little bit of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics is weird.
The conventional wisdom is wrong

It's not just the sense that people who know a little have of it. It stunned most physicists as they discovered the data and struggled to understand what this meant about reality. And it continues to stun laypeople and professionals alike.

Richard Feynman: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
Niels Bohr: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
Albert Einstein: instead of quoting him I'll point out that he found some of QM so weird he even denied the data.
discomfort with the strange implications of his own quantum wave equation, particularly as seen in his famous cat paradox.
John Wheeler: "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it."
Max Born: "The quantum theory is absurd, but completely correct."
Roger Penrose: "Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense."

And, let 'us' not forget that some of what these people believed or thought were true, ended up not being True, nor Correct, at all.

Just like what these above people thought or believed in regards to 'quantum mechanics' could be absolutely False, and Wrong, as well.

A great deal of research in science is driven by models/paradigms.

Which explains WHY these types of people here took so, so long to just, also, see and understand what is, actually, True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life.

Once again, if one removes all of the assumptions, guesses, and theories, then just 'finding', and then 'seeing', and 'understanding', the actual Truth of things is, really, so much simpler and easier, and much, much quicker as well.

People explore what seem to be the implications of the models. This is part of how humans think and choose lines of research out of the multitude of options that otherwise are near random.

And, again, WHY it took these human beings, back then, SO, SO LONG.

This has been extremely fruitful. To move from data to models and paradigms, which in this case and other cases include ontology, puts part of the enterprise of science in the realm of philosophy also.

Wow, here is 'one's perspective' of 'extremely fruitful'. Imagine how surprised it would have been, will be, if it is 'around' when how much faster, and how much more fruitful, things will actually come about, and be.

Apart from being useful, having the kinds of understanding at the model/paradigmatic level is a goal in and of itself in science, for both scientists and lay people and tends to have implications outside of science.

This seems like another attempt at just 'trying to' 'justify' their Wrong, and slow, doings.

If's fine if someone wants to follow what David Mermin might have said: "Shut up and calculate!"

Yes. STOP making assumptions, guesses, theories, and just 'models', and just 'SEE' what IS, actually, True, and Right, HERE.

After all what is, irrefutably, True, and Right, is ALL HERE, for ALL to just 'look at', and 'see'.

All of these presumptions, beliefs, guess work, and Truly unnecessary modelling has only SLOWED you ALL, DOWN.

WHY guess what is Right, when what is Right is HERE, NOW, for ALL to 'look at', 'see', AND 'understand'.

But there are philosophical issues in qm, the physicists themselves are creating ideas related to ontology, and they do this precisely because this is part of the methodology of science which is not just observations, data and mathematical formulas.

And the great thing is that doing one set of processes does not rule out doing the other: we don't have to choose, either as professionals or laypeople, between math and models/paradigmatic stands.

We can do both.

And, CONTINUE just WASTING what you people, Incorrectly, call 'time'.

[Skepdick]

We have successful quantum mechanics, we don't have quantum philosophy.
"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"

That's not true. There are multiple philosophies/interpretations.

My favourite one is Quantum Bayesianism as it aligns terribly well with De Finetti's subjective interpretation of probability.

With that said - applied physicists mostly care about having a functional scientific aparatus and philosophy/interpretations don't give you anything new here.

[accelafine]

We have successful quantum mechanics, we don't have quantum philosophy.
"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"
/March 18, 2014 by Matthew Rave/
----.
The conventional wisdom among people who know a little bit of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics is weird.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Quantum mechanics is not weird. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are weird.
#
Quantum mechanics is an entirely mathematical theory.
It is arguably the most successful and powerful theory to come out of the 20th century.
Now, the mathematics of quantum mechanics are abstract and hard to visualize.
Nevertheless, people insist on trying to visualize anyway. And the result is all kinds of weirdness:
Schrödinger’s cat, wave-particle duality, the collapse of the wave function, many-worlds theory,
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These ideas are all mental hoops that people have jumped
through to explain some unambiguous, concrete, abstract linear algebra.
The math is just math, and it works; what it means is anyone’s guess.
#
Don’t like the many-worlds interpretation? Fine. Be a Copenhagenist.
Don’t like pilot waves? Great. Stick to your pet idea about superluminal communication.
Just remember that all of these competing interpretations make the exact same predictions,
so for all practical purposes they are the same.
Some people go so far as to say, just shut up and calculate.
-----
https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/03/18 ... mechanics/

But if the Sun suddenly started rising in the west and setting in the east then you would want to know why wouldn't you? Even if it made no discernible difference to anything?

[socrattus]

We have successful quantum mechanics, we don't have quantum philosophy.
"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"
/March 18, 2014 by Matthew Rave/
----.
The conventional wisdom among people who know a little bit of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics is weird.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Quantum mechanics is not weird. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are weird.
#
Quantum mechanics is an entirely mathematical theory.
It is arguably the most successful and powerful theory to come out of the 20th century.
Now, the mathematics of quantum mechanics are abstract and hard to visualize.
Nevertheless, people insist on trying to visualize anyway. And the result is all kinds of weirdness:
Schrödinger’s cat, wave-particle duality, the collapse of the wave function, many-worlds theory,
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These ideas are all mental hoops that people have jumped
through to explain some unambiguous, concrete, abstract linear algebra.
The math is just math, and it works; what it means is anyone’s guess.
#
Don’t like the many-worlds interpretation? Fine. Be a Copenhagenist.
Don’t like pilot waves? Great. Stick to your pet idea about superluminal communication.
Just remember that all of these competing interpretations make the exact same predictions,
so for all practical purposes they are the same.
Some people go so far as to say, just shut up and calculate.
-----
https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/03/18 ... mechanics/

But if the Sun suddenly started rising in the west and setting in the east then you would want to know why wouldn't you? Even if it made no discernible difference to anything?

Nature is what it is. Problem: . . .
The ‘paradox’ is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ‘ought to be’.
/Richard P. Feynman/

[accelafine]

Not sure what that has to do wtih what I said, but hey, I'm used to that on here...

[Iwannaplato]

We have successful quantum mechanics, we don't have quantum philosophy.
"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"
/March 18, 2014 by Matthew Rave/
----.
The conventional wisdom among people who know a little bit of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics is weird.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Quantum mechanics is not weird. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are weird.
#
Quantum mechanics is an entirely mathematical theory.
It is arguably the most successful and powerful theory to come out of the 20th century.
Now, the mathematics of quantum mechanics are abstract and hard to visualize.
Nevertheless, people insist on trying to visualize anyway. And the result is all kinds of weirdness:
Schrödinger’s cat, wave-particle duality, the collapse of the wave function, many-worlds theory,
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These ideas are all mental hoops that people have jumped
through to explain some unambiguous, concrete, abstract linear algebra.
The math is just math, and it works; what it means is anyone’s guess.
#
Don’t like the many-worlds interpretation? Fine. Be a Copenhagenist.
Don’t like pilot waves? Great. Stick to your pet idea about superluminal communication.
Just remember that all of these competing interpretations make the exact same predictions,
so for all practical purposes they are the same.
Some people go so far as to say, just shut up and calculate.
-----
https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/03/18 ... mechanics/

But if the Sun suddenly started rising in the west and setting in the east then you would want to know why wouldn't you? Even if it made no discernible difference to anything?

Nature is what it is. Problem: . . .
The ‘paradox’ is only a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality ‘ought to be’.
/Richard P. Feynman/

She didn't say anything about a paradox. Nor anything about what 'ought to be'.

[socrattus]

Not sure what that has to do wtih what I said, but hey, I'm used to that on here...

You said ". . . if the Sun suddenly started rising in the west and setting in the east . . ."
I said "Nature is what it is"
Do you have problems understanding?

[accelafine]

Not sure what that has to do wtih what I said, but hey, I'm used to that on here...

You said ". . . if the Sun suddenly started rising in the west and setting in the east . . ."
I said "Nature is what it is"
Do you have problems understanding?

I'm well aware of what I said and what you said (it's still there).

[wtf]

Quantum mechanics is an entirely mathematical theory.

It's impossible to remove philosophy from QM.

The reason is that before QM, people thought physics was the study of nature.

After QM, people realized that physics was the building of mathematical models that predicted the results of experiments; and that it was not part of physics to wonder what nature is really doing. Hence, wondering what nature is really doing is now derided as "philosophy," as in your post. "Shut up and calculate" in other words.

So the very act of doing QM is an act of philosophy. It amounts to a claim that physics is about models and no longer about nature.

In the old days, a physicist would say they're trying to figure out what nature is doing.

Now, a physicist who says they're trying to figure out what nature is doing, is marginalized as doing philosophy. As Sean Carroll has pointed out, those kinds of people can't get grants. Wanting to know what nature is doing is no longer considered science.

[socrattus]

Quantum mechanics is an entirely mathematical theory.

It's impossible to remove philosophy from QM.

So the very act of doing QM is an act of philosophy. It amounts to a claim that physics is about models and no longer about nature.

Quantum mechanics is the science of nature.
The scientific model should reflect nature. . . But . . .
Book “Facing Up”,
“I think few philosophers of science take it (discussing questions about scientific knowledge)
as part of their job description to help scientists in their research. . . . " / page 84 /
“ . . . If they (philosophers) haven’t done that job, too bad for them” / page 104 /
/by by Steven Weinberg/

“To me, a philosopher who doesn’t know quantum mechanics is like a swimmer
with his or her hands tied behind their back.” /Frank Wilczek/

[Iwannaplato]

It's impossible to remove philosophy from QM.

So the very act of doing QM is an act of philosophy. It amounts to a claim that physics is about models and no longer about nature.

Quantum mechanics is the science of nature. The scientific model should reflect nature. . . But . . .

You just took a philosophical stance. It's scientific realism, not instrumentalism or pragmatism. It also indicates a Correspondence Theory of Truth, This theory holds that truth is determined by how accurately it reflects or corresponds to reality. And this is not the only position held by scientists, though it's a majority position and it is philosophy.

Book “Facing Up”,
“I think few philosophers of science take it (discussing questions about scientific knowledge)
as part of their job description to help scientists in their research. . . . " / page 84 /

Because they have their paradigms already, which they assume are true, but they do take philosophical stands on epistemology and they take stands in the paradigms that lead to their models and also what they choose to research next. They may not mull these things over, - though anyone working in qm is definitely also thinking about philosophy, whether they call it that or not and is aware that paradigms and models affect knowledge and it may be necessary to find new ones and/or be careful not to miss things due to bias. They all know about how qm rocked the classical mechanics boat - toss in Einstein also.

“To me, a philosopher who doesn’t know quantum mechanics is like a swimmer
with his or her hands tied behind their back.” /Frank Wilczek/

And someone working with qm lacking philosophical skills will probably not come up with much new. But, really, they couldn't have gotten where they are without them. I don't think you really responded to wtf.

[Atla]

We have successful quantum mechanics, we don't have quantum philosophy.
"There’s no philosophy in quantum mechanics"
/March 18, 2014 by Matthew Rave/
----.
The conventional wisdom among people who know a little bit of quantum mechanics is that quantum mechanics is weird.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Quantum mechanics is not weird. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are weird.
#
Quantum mechanics is an entirely mathematical theory.
It is arguably the most successful and powerful theory to come out of the 20th century.
Now, the mathematics of quantum mechanics are abstract and hard to visualize.
Nevertheless, people insist on trying to visualize anyway. And the result is all kinds of weirdness:
Schrödinger’s cat, wave-particle duality, the collapse of the wave function, many-worlds theory,
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These ideas are all mental hoops that people have jumped
through to explain some unambiguous, concrete, abstract linear algebra.
The math is just math, and it works; what it means is anyone’s guess.
#
Don’t like the many-worlds interpretation? Fine. Be a Copenhagenist.
Don’t like pilot waves? Great. Stick to your pet idea about superluminal communication.
Just remember that all of these competing interpretations make the exact same predictions,
so for all practical purposes they are the same.
Some people go so far as to say, just shut up and calculate.
-----
https://manyworldstheory.com/2014/03/18 ... mechanics/

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.

[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/