4 ms·

> In fact, I would argue that Occam's Razor advises us to prefer non-realism. Can you list these arguments, please? IMHO, Occam's Razor is at side of realism:

> In fact, I would argue that Occam's Razor advises us to prefer non-realism. Can you list these arguments, please? IMHO, Occam's Razor is at side of realism: our Universe has no bounds in space, in time, and in scale. So, we can predict future of any particle if we will have enough information about it, but we cannot do that with 100% confidence, because Universe is endlessly deep. We can only collect information about particles at our "layer" of Universe only (or "dimension" in terms of String theory). The deeper we will go, the more uncertainty we will have, because particles will be influenced by "layer(s)" ("dimensions") below our.

FakeComments 8y ago
There’s also an “outside the box” problem: in a non-local universe, it may be impossible for you to compute the trajectory of something without perturbing it, eg, because you slightly jiggle all of the electrons everywhere. So the co-trajectory of your computation and the particle only ever agree by so much: attempts to increase the accuracy of the calculation kick the particle around, rendering it inaccurate. There’s deep senses in which uncertainty emerges from being part of the system you’re measuring, in any paradigm.
TelmoMenezes 8y ago
> Can you list these arguments, please? I can give you mine... Realism argues that we (as minds, let's say) exist within a reality that keeps existing when we are not looking, i.e. that is independent of our own existence. These are two types of entities, mind-body beings such as you and me + the external, persistent material world. If there's just entities like you and me (whatever we are) sharing a collective dream, that is one less type of entity. Occam's Razor advises against the unnecessary propagation of entities in explanatory endeavors. This of course does not falsify realism, but it demands that it is there only if to explain something that could not be explained otherwise. > our Universe has no bounds in space, in time, and in scale Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. I would say that our universe (forgetting MWI stuff) is bounded in time (Big Bang was 13.7 billion years ago), in space (expanding but finite) and in scale (there is such a thing as the fundamental building blocks of matter, maybe they have internal structure, but they seem to be below the level where the concept of "structure" even makes sense -- they are phenomena more than "things"). > So, we can predict future of any particle if we will have enough information about it, Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy > but we cannot do that with 100% confidence, because Universe is endlessly deep. You are alluding to chaos theory, but quantum indeterminacy is more fundamental than that. Also, nobody knows if the Universe is "endlessly deep", and current empirical evidence points to "it's not".
- FakeComments 8y ago
  The very notion of “you and me” is an appeal to realism: without an external world, there is only me — “you” become a figment of my imagination. Realism explains why my paper a) arrives while I’m asleep and b) sometimes surprises me with the content or by not arriving. I’ve yet to see a non-realist explanation of my paper that doesn’t seem deeply more convoluted than “someone like me, but not me dropped it off independent of my awareness”. I’m not saying you can’t make a model out of that, but you quickly arrive at the equivalent of epicycles to explain even basic things like my newspaper arriving (or not). Also, “quantum indeterminacy” is an assumption, not a proven fact supported by evidence. That’s the exact thing under discussion now: it’s justification as an interpretative assumption.

FakeComments 8y ago

There’s also an “outside the box” problem: in a non-local universe, it may be impossible for you to compute the trajectory of something without perturbing it, eg, because you slightly jiggle all of the electrons everywhere. So the co-trajectory of your computation and the particle only ever agree by so much: attempts to increase the accuracy of the calculation kick the particle around, rendering it inaccurate. There’s deep senses in which uncertainty emerges from being part of the system you’re measuring, in any paradigm.

TelmoMenezes 8y ago

> Can you list these arguments, please? I can give you mine... Realism argues that we (as minds, let's say) exist within a reality that keeps existing when we are not looking, i.e. that is independent of our own existence. These are two types of entities, mind-body beings such as you and me + the external, persistent material world. If there's just entities like you and me (whatever we are) sharing a collective dream, that is one less type of entity. Occam's Razor advises against the unnecessary propagation of entities in explanatory endeavors. This of course does not falsify realism, but it demands that it is there only if to explain something that could not be explained otherwise. > our Universe has no bounds in space, in time, and in scale Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. I would say that our universe (forgetting MWI stuff) is bounded in time (Big Bang was 13.7 billion years ago), in space (expanding but finite) and in scale (there is such a thing as the fundamental building blocks of matter, maybe they have internal structure, but they seem to be below the level where the concept of "structure" even makes sense -- they are phenomena more than "things"). > So, we can predict future of any particle if we will have enough information about it, Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy > but we cannot do that with 100% confidence, because Universe is endlessly deep. You are alluding to chaos theory, but quantum indeterminacy is more fundamental than that. Also, nobody knows if the Universe is "endlessly deep", and current empirical evidence points to "it's not".

FakeComments 8y ago
The very notion of “you and me” is an appeal to realism: without an external world, there is only me — “you” become a figment of my imagination. Realism explains why my paper a) arrives while I’m asleep and b) sometimes surprises me with the content or by not arriving. I’ve yet to see a non-realist explanation of my paper that doesn’t seem deeply more convoluted than “someone like me, but not me dropped it off independent of my awareness”. I’m not saying you can’t make a model out of that, but you quickly arrive at the equivalent of epicycles to explain even basic things like my newspaper arriving (or not). Also, “quantum indeterminacy” is an assumption, not a proven fact supported by evidence. That’s the exact thing under discussion now: it’s justification as an interpretative assumption.