5 ms·

Who else invented it?

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
That question presupposed it was invented. Its just there. To be discovered. Its not different somewhere else; it wouldn't be different in a different universe.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I don't think you are aware of what you are claiming. If something is "out there" as a specific concept as you claim, then it requires a perspective to isolate it as "a thing" which means you are basically claiming there must have been a creator. If there is no creator then there is no perspective other than that of observers like us. Unless you of course claim that the classical physical universe is fundamental not the quantum physical one.
  - kordless 10y ago
    I don't think you are aware of what is claiming this. ;) Perspective matters in terms of "proving" something outside of observation, by the assumed fact observation can change perspective. In other words, if all of this is a single entity, it's going to be hard to prove that because bits would exist outside perception due to the cost of it being a recursive operation. One may not know oneself without recursion.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      You are also missing the point. If something exist "out there" as a separate concept then it can only do so because it exist as a discreet entity. Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local. We can observe because there is a discreet universe to observe within, but that does not make the observable universe the foundation of reality. And so if you want to claim that something exist out there without there being a designer or without our perspective of reality being what turn it into existence then you need to explain how it relates to the entire universe not just the classical one.
      - kordless 10y ago
        I would argue it with irrationality, which is the point here. Science can't be used inside a frame of reference to refer to something outside that frame without being irrational. The point the scientific principle becomes irrational is the point people start demanding an explanation. I would also say that it is possible we are all missing the point.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        What is outside the frame of reference? QM isn't outside the frame of reference of the scientific method though. It's as proven mathematically and empirically as general relativity is. So the only irrational thing here would be to claim that the quantum world isn't as real as the classical physical world. Agree on the last part though. we might (are most likely) all be missing the point
      - wyager 10y ago
        > Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Please stop trying to use QM in philosophy arguments. If you do, you're almost certainly misunderstanding what it entails.
        danbruc 10y ago
        No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Entanglement seems to be fundamentally non-local - unless you posit hidden variables - and does not depend on the interpretation.
        wyager 10y ago
        It is not. Theories like einselection explain entanglement with only local effects (via superselection rules).
  - wyager 10y ago
    > then it requires a perspective to isolate it as "a thing" which means you are basically claiming there must have been a creator. This statement doesn't follow. They're entirely unrelated claims. > If there is no creator then there is no perspective other than that of observers like us... the quantum physical one. Stop trying to integrate pseudo-quantum physics into hokey philosophical arguments. You don't know what you're talking about, and it detracts from any value the argument might otherwise have. Humans are not unique as "observers" in quantum physics. Air molecules appear to work as well. We haven't solved the measurement problem, but we know enough to say that it almost certainly doesn't have any bearing on arguments about platonic realism.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Who claimed we were unique observers? Please stop your strawmen and please stop cutting sentence of a larger discussion into pieces to try and dismiss them. Air-molecules doesn't change anything with regards to the claim that things exist "out there" non what so ever. If your only beef is that you don't think I know anything about QM then I will live with that.
    - mcbits 10y ago
      Where does one cloud end and the next cloud begin? The boundaries and distinctive traits of clouds only exist in our minds. We can build mathematical objects that look something like clouds according to the observable characteristics deemed intrinsic to our definition of "cloud". We can't simulate real cloud systems with arbitrary fidelity because the the mathematical foundation we've invented leads rapidly to intractable computation. "But supposing we had infinite computation" is magical thinking. Still, the universe gives us clouds. It's operating on different foundational principles. Now, moving from sky clouds to things like electron clouds, we have the added problem of what appears to be "true" non-computable randomness (not just chaos) underlying it all. Many worlds doesn't rid us of the randomness problem but merely shifts it to the problem of deciding which branch we inhabit before/after an event. We can still hang onto the notion of mathematics as discovery by recognizing it as a process of self-discovery about how our brains perceive the world.
kordless 10y ago
There are some aggregates who hold as a truth that some mathematics constructs, such as a circle, are "prior to knowledge". This is summarized, at length, by Kant in his argument for some truths being a priori, or before knowledge. Kant's stated purpose of his critique of such logic was a proof of god, or a higher state of being.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  A priori just means assumed to be true which goes to the very heart of the problems with this discussion.

That question presupposed it was invented. Its just there. To be discovered. Its not different somewhere else; it wouldn't be different in a different universe.

ThomPete 10y ago
I don't think you are aware of what you are claiming. If something is "out there" as a specific concept as you claim, then it requires a perspective to isolate it as "a thing" which means you are basically claiming there must have been a creator. If there is no creator then there is no perspective other than that of observers like us. Unless you of course claim that the classical physical universe is fundamental not the quantum physical one.
- kordless 10y ago
  I don't think you are aware of what is claiming this. ;) Perspective matters in terms of "proving" something outside of observation, by the assumed fact observation can change perspective. In other words, if all of this is a single entity, it's going to be hard to prove that because bits would exist outside perception due to the cost of it being a recursive operation. One may not know oneself without recursion.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    You are also missing the point. If something exist "out there" as a separate concept then it can only do so because it exist as a discreet entity. Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local. We can observe because there is a discreet universe to observe within, but that does not make the observable universe the foundation of reality. And so if you want to claim that something exist out there without there being a designer or without our perspective of reality being what turn it into existence then you need to explain how it relates to the entire universe not just the classical one.
    - kordless 10y ago
      I would argue it with irrationality, which is the point here. Science can't be used inside a frame of reference to refer to something outside that frame without being irrational. The point the scientific principle becomes irrational is the point people start demanding an explanation. I would also say that it is possible we are all missing the point.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        What is outside the frame of reference? QM isn't outside the frame of reference of the scientific method though. It's as proven mathematically and empirically as general relativity is. So the only irrational thing here would be to claim that the quantum world isn't as real as the classical physical world. Agree on the last part though. we might (are most likely) all be missing the point
    - wyager 10y ago
      > Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Please stop trying to use QM in philosophy arguments. If you do, you're almost certainly misunderstanding what it entails.
      - danbruc 10y ago
        No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Entanglement seems to be fundamentally non-local - unless you posit hidden variables - and does not depend on the interpretation.
        wyager 10y ago
        It is not. Theories like einselection explain entanglement with only local effects (via superselection rules).
- wyager 10y ago
  > then it requires a perspective to isolate it as "a thing" which means you are basically claiming there must have been a creator. This statement doesn't follow. They're entirely unrelated claims. > If there is no creator then there is no perspective other than that of observers like us... the quantum physical one. Stop trying to integrate pseudo-quantum physics into hokey philosophical arguments. You don't know what you're talking about, and it detracts from any value the argument might otherwise have. Humans are not unique as "observers" in quantum physics. Air molecules appear to work as well. We haven't solved the measurement problem, but we know enough to say that it almost certainly doesn't have any bearing on arguments about platonic realism.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Who claimed we were unique observers? Please stop your strawmen and please stop cutting sentence of a larger discussion into pieces to try and dismiss them. Air-molecules doesn't change anything with regards to the claim that things exist "out there" non what so ever. If your only beef is that you don't think I know anything about QM then I will live with that.
  - mcbits 10y ago
    Where does one cloud end and the next cloud begin? The boundaries and distinctive traits of clouds only exist in our minds. We can build mathematical objects that look something like clouds according to the observable characteristics deemed intrinsic to our definition of "cloud". We can't simulate real cloud systems with arbitrary fidelity because the the mathematical foundation we've invented leads rapidly to intractable computation. "But supposing we had infinite computation" is magical thinking. Still, the universe gives us clouds. It's operating on different foundational principles. Now, moving from sky clouds to things like electron clouds, we have the added problem of what appears to be "true" non-computable randomness (not just chaos) underlying it all. Many worlds doesn't rid us of the randomness problem but merely shifts it to the problem of deciding which branch we inhabit before/after an event. We can still hang onto the notion of mathematics as discovery by recognizing it as a process of self-discovery about how our brains perceive the world.

kordless 10y ago

There are some aggregates who hold as a truth that some mathematics constructs, such as a circle, are "prior to knowledge". This is summarized, at length, by Kant in his argument for some truths being a priori, or before knowledge. Kant's stated purpose of his critique of such logic was a proof of god, or a higher state of being.

ThomPete 10y ago
A priori just means assumed to be true which goes to the very heart of the problems with this discussion.