4 ms·
> I've never understood how some physicists disregard philosophy and do it with a straight face. A full list of advancements in physics made thanks to advancem
by m1el 8y ago
> I've never understood how some physicists disregard philosophy and do it with a straight face.
A full list of advancements in physics made thanks to advancements in philosophy during the 20th century: Ø.
> How else are supposed to understand and make meaning of their findings?
You don't. Your everyday intuitions no longer apply to phenomena on scales often well described by physics. Shut up and calculate.
> Take scientific realism for example. Roughly, whether our theories have a 1-1 mapping to reality.
Science/physics doesn't provide a "1-1 mapping to reality", it provides predictive models which don't necessarily apply to all phenomena. Newtonian physics is still being used today in everything on the ground.
> Are the entities described by, say physics, really exist? Say an electron? Or is it just a concept or a tool that we use to understand the world?
I could (in principle) harm you with an electron beam. Does that qualify for "really exist"?
> A common objection to scientific realism is Pessimistic Meta Induction. Roughly, we've been always wrong about physics and physical entities, even when we made progress, therefore we're likely wrong now (maybe less wrong but still wrong).
See above for "scientific realism".
> I think part of the reason we don't have consesus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is because of this dismissal of philosophy by physicists.
Nobody stops philosophers from picking up a book on quantum mechanics and writing their own interpretation. The problem is, in vast majority of cases the interpretations are either wrong or complete crap.
- empath75 8y ago> A full list of advancements in physics made thanks to advancements in philosophy during the 20th century: Ø. Einstein’s theory of relativity was inspired directly by the work for Ernst Mach and his use of thought experiments lies at least as much in the realm of philosophy as it does in physics. As well, the physicist’s pursuit of Naturalness in scientific theories is also primarily philosophical in nature.
- justin66 8y ago> The problem is, in vast majority of cases the interpretations are either wrong or complete crap. Can you name half a dozen such interpretations that one could read? Just curious.
- m1el 8y agoI can't name you concrete examples, because I've encountered this too many times. But here are general categories in which those interpretations fall: - The physicists just can't measure precise enough, so they think in probabilities. Also known as "hidden variables". This is wrong. Bell test demonstrates the opposite. - "Observing" a particle can change it state, therefore observer can change everything, therefore our minds are all-mighty. - We don't understand "quantum" and we don't understand minds. A mind "can't just work on classical computation alone" and quantum computation is more powerful. Therefore minds are "quantum". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
- justin66 8y ago> I can't name you concrete examples, because I've encountered this too many times. It's actually kind of hard to know where you're coming from as far as critiquing the state of philosophy when you list something like #2, which is anonymous, cartoonishly stupid, and perhaps not representative of anything, alongside Roger Penrose, whose work is at least interesting.
- m1el 8y agoAs interesting the assumption that mind can't work on classical computation could be, it's still not grounded in anything but assumption of humans being special. It's also wrong to take two unknowns and assume they have the same explanation.
- Balgair 8y agoPenrose is a smart guy, but he's advocating for stuff that's not seen in experiments. Your CNS is decidedly 'classical' and is not doing quantum thingys (any more so than all things are quantum-y). The synapse, though still a bit murky and under study, is not doing quantum-only stuff.
- adrianN 8y agoI don't believe that our brains are quantum computers, but I don't think we know enough about how the CNS works to completely rule it out. Quantum effects have been observed in living organisms [1], so the "it's a warm soup" argument is not sufficient. [1] https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-p...