3 ms·
Isn't this confusing the map for the terrain? The mathematical formalism doesn't have an answer to the questions this essay is asking. If you model reality with
by dkarapetyan 10y ago
Isn't this confusing the map for the terrain? The mathematical formalism doesn't have an answer to the questions this essay is asking. If you model reality with wave functions and compute then you get certain results. That's pretty much all the mathematics says. Material things are entirely absent in the mathematical formalism.
In math people learn to not ask questions like "what is a set?". The answer is always whatever is consistent with the axioms of set theory. That question is a non-question in the mathematical formalism of set theory. I think it's the same thing in physics. Asking what is an electron when all you have are some axioms about wave functions will lead to equally nonsensical answers.
- malloryerik 10y agoIt sounds like you may actually be in accord with the author. His point seems to be a reminder that, as I think you are in part saying, mathematical formalism -- and physics -- don't have answers to many fundamental questions, yet it is tempting and can even appear more "serious" to jump to conclusions, especially when jumping to another field, and act as if they do. "Classifying consciousness as a material problem is tantamount to saying that consciousness, too, remains fundamentally unexplained." So it appears that he's reminding us that the map is still largely blank, with only some terrain filled in. This hits my ears almost like an echo of Plato's Apology, wherein Socrates claims that if the Delphic oracle is correct and he is indeed wiser than others, it is only because he has a better grasp of his own ignorance.