4 ms·
> We have first order knowledge of things No, we don't. We only have first-order knowledge of our perceptions of things. And quantum mechanics shows us that
by lisper 3y ago
> We have first order knowledge of things
No, we don't. We only have first-order knowledge of our perceptions of things. And quantum mechanics shows us that those perceptions can be radically different from the underlying reality.
Of course, Einstein can be forgiven for making this mistake because he didn't know about the Bell inequality and the subsequent experiments, so it is understandable that he would cling to the hope that something would come along and rescue QM from the EPR paradox by somehow extracting classical reality from the Schroedinger equation. But modern thinkers cannot be so readily absolved.
- likeabbas 3y ago>But modern thinkers cannot be so readily absolved No, but they can go on a 40 year goose chase trying to reconcile the many different string theories that don't have any physical evidence to substantiate. QFT is one of the most successful theories we've created, but GR is still our best theory regarding gravity. There's still no evidence for the graviton. We probably need something else besides QFT to describe the nature of reality
- zhangjunphy 3y agoQFT is too successful that experimentalists stuck for half a century with no meaningful surprise. But theoreticians got to maintain a publication streak if trying to stay in academy. Thus string theory becomes the perfect field. Most ones doing it seem to know it is a goose chase but no one dare to admit it publicly as your colleagues stripped of funding would tear you to pieces. I feel we really should sort these papers into a category "physics in imaginary universe", so other people do not get confused.
- lmm 3y ago> QFT is one of the most successful theories we've created, but GR is still our best theory regarding gravity. There's still no evidence for the graviton. We probably need something else besides QFT to describe the nature of reality The evidence for QFT is orders of magnitude stronger than the evidence for GR, and the two are incompatible. The empirical evidence is simply the fact that gravity exists; if there's no graviton then how does gravity work? If the right model isn't one of the (obscenely many) possible string theories, then what? I'm sceptical about string theory, but unless and until we come up with a better alternative, it's the only option. (People love to compare it with epicycles - but until you have the insight that lets you eliminate epicycles, you use them, because how else do you get on with doing science?)
- _8j50 3y ago> then what? Then it us a "simulation". "Pixels" of reality rendering.
- lmm 3y agoAnd? That doesn't explain anything. What rules is the "simulation" following? If it's not following any, how come reality behaves so consistently in most respects?
- _8j50 3y agoSimulation theory is not my invention, actual scientists have tested it and theorized with strong evidence. I would answer your question but not worth the downvotes like my original comment.
- gus_massa 3y agoI don't remember any evidence supporting the simulation theory. Do you have a link?
- _8j50 3y agoI wouldn't say empirical evidence but here is one of many that keeps popping up in popsci news: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live...
- gus_massa 3y agoThat sounds good, but after reading it carefully it makes no sense. It was posted in April 1 2021.
- tsimionescu 3y agoThat article is an April Fools joke. The simulation hypothesis is nothing except sciencey-sounding creationism/dualism.
- pvitz 3y agoEinstein knew the works of Schopenhauer quite well and for sure didn't make this mistake. Furthermore, most of the Physicists back then were most likely influenced by Kant or Mach (Einstein called himself his student in letters to him).
- lisper 3y agoEinstein knew the works of Bach quite well too. That doesn't mean that Bach had anything meaningful to contribute to our understanding of the world (except insofar as figuring out how to write good music is such a contribution).
- pvitz 3y agoHowever, we are not talking about Bach, but about Einstein's knowledge of epistemology and that he certainly was well versed in that subject and didn't make such a basic mistake as you alluded to.
- lisper 3y agoWhat I was alluding to was Einstein's belief that the EPR paradox was evidence that QM was incomplete. He was wrong about that, but can be forgiven because he didn't know about Bell and Aspect.