3 ms·

These are just mathematical tools we use to make predictions. Assuming they represent objective reality and somehow prove an infinite number of universes doesn

These are just mathematical tools we use to make predictions. Assuming they represent objective reality and somehow prove an infinite number of universes doesn’t seem very scientific to me.

bowsamic 3y ago
I mean, that's obviously a huge matter of debate, but most of us physicists at least hope that our theories reflect objective reality in some way. Also, there are of course explicitly ontological aspects of quantum mechanics, such as PBR theorem and Bell's inequalities
goatlover 3y ago
That's way too instrumentalist. The math also describes how atoms work and many other things. Modern physical understanding is based on those descriptions. Cosmology and nuclear physics would be useless without an understanding. How do the predictions work if they aren't in some way modeling the way reality is? Why does the technology based on them work? Instrumentalism gives no answers to those questions. Science is about understanding the world, and using that to make predictions.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  They work because they use human logic which has evolved to understand the universe just enough to “work” and where that logic doesn’t work we use probabilities to ensure we’re only calculating the odds and deriving from there. You can devise probabilistic systems of equations to describe stock prices and account for when you could be wrong, but this is not you describing some objective set of equations the market emanates from. It working doesn’t mean it in anyway reflects some objective truth (if such a thing even exists.) It just breaks things down into small enough parts you can then model those parts and make predictions. This does not mean those small parts are “real” just that they are convenient ways to describe the flowing of energy for our purposes. > atoms work and many other things Atoms are still just a human created mathematical abstraction we use to describe and make predictions about matter. All there really is is energy and atoms are just a mathematical tool we use to study energy. This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved. They’re tools, don’t get me wrong they are very useful ones, but the second you start pretending they’re anything else or that your interpretation of them is how reality really works you become just another religious zealot and that goes against everything science is supposed to be about.
  - goatlover 3y ago
    > Atoms are still just a human created mathematical abstraction we use to describe and make predictions about matter. All there really is is energy and atoms are just a mathematical tool we use to study energy. We can see atoms with electron microscopes. A mathematical tool to study energy doesn't say anything. A tool describing how chemistry arises from atomic structure does. > This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved. Not proved, but imagine using this sort of argument against evolution being a true account of life's history on Earth. Of course it won't get everything right, but in general there is simply no other way to explain how life forms changed over time. Similarly, there's no other way to understand microscopic physics than quantum mechanics. Maybe a more complete theory combining gravity and QM would be more true, just like Newtonian physics was incomplete and superseded by relativity.
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    > This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved. Yet earlier you asserted one side of the argument without proving it nor even acknowledging that there is a debate

These are just mathematical tools we use to make predictions. Assuming they represent objective reality and somehow prove an infinite number of universes doesn’t seem very scientific to me.

bowsamic 3y ago

I mean, that's obviously a huge matter of debate, but most of us physicists at least hope that our theories reflect objective reality in some way. Also, there are of course explicitly ontological aspects of quantum mechanics, such as PBR theorem and Bell's inequalities

goatlover 3y ago

That's way too instrumentalist. The math also describes how atoms work and many other things. Modern physical understanding is based on those descriptions. Cosmology and nuclear physics would be useless without an understanding. How do the predictions work if they aren't in some way modeling the way reality is? Why does the technology based on them work? Instrumentalism gives no answers to those questions. Science is about understanding the world, and using that to make predictions.

edgyquant 3y ago
They work because they use human logic which has evolved to understand the universe just enough to “work” and where that logic doesn’t work we use probabilities to ensure we’re only calculating the odds and deriving from there. You can devise probabilistic systems of equations to describe stock prices and account for when you could be wrong, but this is not you describing some objective set of equations the market emanates from. It working doesn’t mean it in anyway reflects some objective truth (if such a thing even exists.) It just breaks things down into small enough parts you can then model those parts and make predictions. This does not mean those small parts are “real” just that they are convenient ways to describe the flowing of energy for our purposes. > atoms work and many other things Atoms are still just a human created mathematical abstraction we use to describe and make predictions about matter. All there really is is energy and atoms are just a mathematical tool we use to study energy. This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved. They’re tools, don’t get me wrong they are very useful ones, but the second you start pretending they’re anything else or that your interpretation of them is how reality really works you become just another religious zealot and that goes against everything science is supposed to be about.
- goatlover 3y ago
  > Atoms are still just a human created mathematical abstraction we use to describe and make predictions about matter. All there really is is energy and atoms are just a mathematical tool we use to study energy. We can see atoms with electron microscopes. A mathematical tool to study energy doesn't say anything. A tool describing how chemistry arises from atomic structure does. > This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved. Not proved, but imagine using this sort of argument against evolution being a true account of life's history on Earth. Of course it won't get everything right, but in general there is simply no other way to explain how life forms changed over time. Similarly, there's no other way to understand microscopic physics than quantum mechanics. Maybe a more complete theory combining gravity and QM would be more true, just like Newtonian physics was incomplete and superseded by relativity.
- bowsamic 3y ago
  > This is quite literally the oldest debate in natural science and it seems like one half of the debate just decided they’re right a few centuries ago and stopped caring about the fact that’s not something they have (or can) ever proved. Yet earlier you asserted one side of the argument without proving it nor even acknowledging that there is a debate