Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Quotidian]

Still waiting for answers and a consensus. I am accused of having insufficient knowledge of the subject but considering the disputes observed by others, I do not think I am alone. How can particles supposedly be seen bouncing one moment and then observed being absorbed the next? How can you describe photons as particles when none of their values give you that right. You can continue to ignore my questions but the answers are still required.

The actual answers, insofar as anyone has them, are written in mathematical equations. They are not expressesible in English. As has been stated, they are not *really* particles or *really* waves; there really is no consensus about 'what it all means'; and some of the great scientific minds of the 20th century were completely baffled by it. There are even now battles between different teams of scientists with very different 'models' of what used to be called 'the atom'. It is confusing, contradictory and hard to fathom. I don't know why you believe here is a conspiracy to obscure something, or to deny something, or hide something from you, as I really don't think there is.

Meanwhile if Einstein, Max Planck, and others, say 'there are photons' then as far as I am concerned, that is data that whatever feeble understanding I have managed to acquire has to accommodate. In my view, any argument that is based on the premise that 'Einstein was wrong' in such a fundamental matter, is not worth considering, especially when it is unlikely that those advancing the argument really don't understand the mathematical basis of the claim in the first place.

[Xris]

The contradiction in your post is alarming.

[Ktulu]

The actual answers, insofar as anyone has them, are written in mathematical equations. They are not expressesible in English. As has been stated, they are not *really* particles or *really* waves; there really is no consensus about 'what it all means'; and some of the great scientific minds of the 20th century were completely baffled by it. There are even now battles between different teams of scientists with very different 'models' of what used to be called 'the atom'. It is confusing, contradictory and hard to fathom. I don't know why you believe here is a conspiracy to obscure something, or to deny something, or hide something from you, as I really don't think there is.

I agree with everything you wrote here.

Meanwhile if Einstein, Max Planck, and others, say 'there are photons' then as far as I am concerned, that is data that whatever feeble understanding I have managed to acquire has to accommodate. In my view, any argument that is based on the premise that 'Einstein was wrong' in such a fundamental matter, is not worth considering, especially when it is unlikely that those advancing the argument really don't understand the mathematical basis of the claim in the first place.

I disagree with everything you wrote here . It's not so much that Einstein was wrong, he actually had the more plausible explanation as outlined in the EPR paradox. It is that he didn't have the proper tools, both theoretical and technological to come to the correct conclusion. The actual math in Bell's inequality is not that complicated at all, nothing a bright high school graduate wouldn't understand. The genius is in coming up with the idea in the first place. Also having better technology for experimenting also helps. I'm not sure the appeal to authority has any merit here especially since it is well known that in this one matter, Einstein was indeed wrong. Again, that's not to take anything away from one of brains I admire, it was just the wrong time in history for that debate.

-- Updated December 1st, 2012, 5:43 pm to add the following --

The contradiction in your post is alarming.

I don't see any contradictions.

-- Updated December 1st, 2012, 5:44 pm to add the following --

The contradiction in your post is alarming.

I see the contradictions.

-- Updated December 1st, 2012, 5:44 pm to add the following --

The contradiction in your post is alarming.

see what I did there? that's QM for you, how do you like that analogy? (that's a joke, I'm just trying to be funny)

[Quotidian]

actually I DO understand, in my layman's way, the Bell Inequality, and the Aspect experiments. I have read, among other things, the relevant passages in Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos, and also recently the most entertaining How the Hippies Saved Physics



(those are the hippies in question, click the URL for more. Hint: one of them was later to become the Dr Quantum in the Double-Slit cartoon.)

So indeed I have an idea as to why one would say that neither photons nor electrons exist, but, I say, it depends on what you mean by the word 'exist', and in order to define that word, I think you have to have a metaphysic. And I haven't seen one here.

[Steve3007]

Quotidian: I fully understand now why you thought the first line from "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" was appropriate to this discussion earlier! Incidentally, when writing it I was thinking of the William Shatner version, to add a little more surrealism.

[Quotidian]

Thanks. Well, fasten seat belt.

In Buddhist philosophy, there is doctrine called 'two truths'. It refers to the conventional and ultimate truths of things. Conventional truth is, as the name implies, the realm of convention, standards, measurables, and consensus. I think that generally speaking this is the realm of truth that is dealt with by science, empiricism, naturalism, and so on. The higher or ultimate truth is the realm of transcendent truth as understood by the Buddhas and expressed through the various teachings. Of course according to conventional philosophy in the Western world, there are no higher truths, so the idea is not really intelligible, but bear with me.

I think sub-atomic physics is in some sense right on the border of conventional and ultimate. That is why the entities in them have no determinate existence in any ultimate sense. The word 'exist', in my view, has a definite meaning: it means 'ex- ' out of, or apart from; and 'ist', to be. So an existing thing is separable and identifiable as apart from other things. That is part of the meaning of 'identity' also. So things that exist have an identity - no identity, no entity, as Quine once said.

Now the identity of sub-atomic entities is highly dubious. For one, they are utterly indistinguishable from one another. This is a hint that they are not actually part of the 'phenomenal' realm, as 'phenomena' are indeed distinguishable and separate. I think this is what Wheeler and Feynmann were hinting at with their One Electron Universe idea. Sub-atomic entities kind of fall short of strict identifiability.

But this doesn't mean they don't exist. All it shows is that at this level, existence itself is not absolute or ultimate. That is why I am saying they are on the borderline of conventional existence. An atomist theory would expect to see some entity at this level which is permanent, indivisible and everlasting - the basis of conventional reality. Instead we found ephemera whose characteristics, as Heisenberg remarked, 'can be expressed only in mathematics' which lead Sir James Jeans to make his celebrated remark that the Universe resembles a great mind more than a great machine.

But from the viewpoint of Buddhist philosophy, this is as expected, because they have always held that there is nothing ultimate about matter, or any ultimate material reality. In fact there were debates about the logical impossibility of indivisible points centuries before the Common Era. (The ancients did not have any conception of electric fields, but they were still highly perceptive.)

So I think 'exist' is the wrong word for such things as atoms, even though they are not non-existent. Maybe 'subsists' would be better. So, in a sense, I agree with Xris, albeit without the constant sense of righteous umbrage.

But the issue is, the very problem that 'natural philosophy' felt it was setting out to solve, still remains as enigmatic as ever. That, I think, is why there is a sense of unease (to put it mildly) around all these questions. The old worldview is dying, and the new one is struggling to be born.

[A Poster He or I]

Quotidian,

Except for what I perceive as a significant difference in where-and-to-what-end you put your focus (from my own focus), I otherwise agree with these statements. It makes the Platonic dimension of your views even more puzzling than ever to me. You seem to see a self-evident reconciliation between the "knowledge of nothing known" and the anchoring of reality in a Platonic framework. I wish you would elaborate on that as much as you have on your Buddhist dimension.

[Steve3007]

Quotidian:

My summary understanding of some of your points.

The higher or ultimate truth is the realm of transcendent truth as understood by the Buddhas and expressed through the various teachings.

Similar to Plato's forms.

The word 'exist', in my view, has a definite meaning: it means 'ex- ' out of, or apart from; and 'ist', to be. So an existing thing is separable and identifiable as apart from other things. That is part of the meaning of 'identity'.

Exist = seperate being. Being is not an object.

Now the identity of sub-atomic entities is highly dubious. For one, they are utterly indistinguishable from one another. This is a hint that they are not actually part of the 'phenomenal' realm, as 'phenomena' are indeed distinguishable and separate. I think this is what Wheeler and Feynmann were hinting at with their One Electron Universe idea. Sub-atomic entities kind of fall short of strict identifiability.

I enjoyed that article. Not sure about your conclusion from it though because I'm not sure what it really means in practice. (I appreciate that you probably don't either and are, like all other honest posters, publicly playing with ideas). The fact that all electrons are identical is (I think) part of the foundation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle and therefore part of the reason why electrons have the particular orbitals in atoms that they have. And therefore part of the basis for chemistry, molecules, organic molecules ... and so on.

So in what sense is there, do you think, a phenomenal realm at all?

So, in a sense, I agree with Xris, albeit without the constant sense of righteous umbrage.

A genuine LOL. (Sorry Xris).

---

Regarding your thoughts on the connection of Bhuddhist philosophy to all this: You clearly have a strong sense that the (for want of a better word) instinctive, intuitional ideas that contribute to the construction of many spiritual ideas resonate deeply with things that have been discovered by modern physics only after many, many man-years of experiment and analysis. Would you regard this as being due to the fact that our minds are a part of the Cosmos and that it is therefore perhaps possible to arrive at some kind of deep qualitative understanding of the workings of that Cosmos without necessarily having to investigate things that are outside of our minds?

In other words, a kind of holistic "all the Universe can be extrapolated from a single piece of fairy cake" idea. (I borrowed that one from Douglas Adams). I.e. since we are a part of the Universe, the deepest workings of that Universe must, in some sense, be imprinted into our minds. So it is at least possible that, contrary to the tradition of empiricism, we might be able to gain at least a vague sense of the way it works purely from introspection.

Although, perhaps you could then say that empiricism can be extended to encompass this because, it turns out, introspection is a scientific experiment! Does this make any sense? (It is quite late and I've drunk a lot of wine.)

[Quotidian]

Good summary, I would go along with a lot of that.

Note spelling of 'Buddhist'.

The fact that all electrons are identical is ...part of the reason why electrons have the particular orbitals in atoms that they have. And therefore part of the basis for chemistry, molecules, organic molecules ... and so on

But that, again, works with the idea that we are talking about principles that underlie 'the manifest realm'. The problem modern empiricism has, as I have said before, is that there is no concept of 'realms' in that sense. Empiricism got rid of the notion of realms of being. So in saying that all sub-atomic entities are the same as each other, that they are in some sense 'one' or 'formless, in effect, they are in some sense able to equated with what is known as 'the unmanifest' or 'the formless' in traditional metaphysics. They don't 'exist' in the way that objects in the empirical realm exist:

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. ..[but] it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.

...The smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or— in Plato’s sense — Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics.

I think here we are seeing the re-discovery of the idea that there are such things as 'real intellectual objects' - that is, entities which exist in a purely notional or intellectual way. So I think it is here that materialism, so called, is really challenged by physics itself. You can say 'oh well, this is just what matter is on the smallest scales' - but it is no longer 'matter' in the sense that materialism set out to understand.

And besides, as we have been discussing, the very act of observation is implicated in the definition of the experimental object.

So in what sense is there, do you think, a phenomenal realm at all?

The phenomenal realm is “the realm of appearance”. The over-riding issue is that post-Enlightenment thought wishes to declare this the only realm (e.g. Carl Sagan: ‘Cosmos is all there is’. ) I think this has been proven untenable. In fact you could argue that the necessity of appealing to Many Worlds and multiple universes is proof of this. In fact some iteration of the traditional cosmology might end up being more parsimonious than this roccocco extravaganza of 10⁵⁰⁰ universes that some are now advocating. But that will require being open to other modes of understanding.

Would you regard this as being due to the fact that our minds are a part of the Cosmos and that it is therefore perhaps possible to arrive at some kind of deep qualitative understanding of the workings of that Cosmos without necessarily having to investigate things that are outside of our minds?

I wouldn't say that exactly. Clearly modern science has discovered many facts about the universe which could never have been discovered by introspection. Had society been under the sway of religious contemplatives we might still be living in grass huts and travelling in horse-drawn vehicles. But perhaps it's a false dichotomy, arising from the way that ‘spirit and matter’ were understood in Western orthodoxy. There is an ancient dictum ‘as above, so below’, which saw man as a kind of epitome of the Universe. I think it was much more characteristic of the Hermetics and some of the gnostics than the mainstream. In fact Descartes, Newton and Kepler were all drawn to those kinds of ideas, but both the ecclesiastical and scientific authorities were not well disposed to them. Perhaps such ideas have always been part of the kind of counter-culture of the day, the alternative thinkers, those outside the mainstream. So the way it developed in practice, as history shows, is, generally, the rejection on the part of science of the 'spirit' side of the equation, and the adoption of the idea that matter alone is real. And that, of course, is the origin of the kind of scientific materialism that I spend a large part of my leisure time criticizing.

In any case, “It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply into oneself, one will discover not only one's own essence, but also the essence of the universe." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Schopenhauer.)

-- Updated December 2nd, 2012, 3:14 pm to add the following --

You seem to see a self-evident reconciliation between the "knowledge of nothing known" and the anchoring of reality in a Platonic framework. I wish you would elaborate on that as much as you have on your Buddhist dimension.

There was a really great feature in New Scientist earlier this year, a special feature called 'What is Reality?' The feature article was written by an interesting young scholar called Jan Westerhoff, who has written books on both metaphysics and Buddhist philosophy. It explored both the idea that 'everything is number', which is of course a basic Pythagorean/Platonist idea, and also the derivation of numbers from the Empty Set. Here is a video summary of the main story.

By the way, it's all a work in progress. I have been studying all this since...let's see now...1979, when I started my first degree. So I haven't come to any firm conclusions yet.

[Steve3007]

Quotidian:

Yes, I understand the idea of different realms which we've discussed before. And I understand that I (along with other people born into the modern empiricist age) may be incapable of truly placing my mind into those realms and I therefore tend to try to understand everything by interpreting the flickering shadows on the walls.

I/we can (I think you would argue) intellectually accept the possibility of the higher realms, but am still not capable of placing myself in them and viewing the world from them. Just as I can intellectually accept the possibility of a 4 dimensional hyper-cube and I can model it mathematically, and I can create imperfect 3D representations of it (6 distorted 3D cubes joined at the faces), but I can never sit inside it and see the world from it, as I can with a 3D cube.

But, from within this limited perception, I was just trying to understand how the concept of identical particles can be separated from, and be regarded as being in a different realm from, the realm of appearance.

Regarding identical particles:

As I said, my understanding is: the fact that all electrons are identical is inextricably connected to the very "phenomenal" facts of the periodic table of elements. The periods and groups and the chemical properties and all that are very much rooted in the "2D" empirical world.

Indeed, I think it was probably this large collection of superficial properties (aka Chemistry) that Ernest Rutherford was mostly referring to when he flippantly suggested that all sciences, apart from physics, are "mere" stamp collecting. He was perhaps claiming something for physics which is not dissimilar to the thing that you are claiming for the spiritual realm and which you are suggesting that modern physics is only just rediscovering.

---

Quotidian:

They don't 'exist' in the way that objects in the empirical realm exist

Heisenberg:

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers...The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles...The smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word

I think this could be a misleading way of putting it because it suggests a sudden, discontinuous fundamental divide between quantum world and classical world. I think it is more productive to see the strangeness of the quantum world as a reason to question our ideas about the whole world.

The large physical objects are made from the small physical objects. The strange concepts of identical particles, wave/particle duality and all that are the building blocks from which the world we see is created. As I said, the mundane stamp-collecting world of chemistry is applied quantum mechanics.

So it makes much more sense to me, rather than saying that the smallest units of matter are not physical objects (but the bigger ones, somehow, are?) to say that their properties force us to re-examine exactly what it means for something to be a "physical object".

---

There is an analogy with a mistake that I think people sometimes make when discussing the nature of solid objects. It is often said: "You may think that table is solid, but actually atoms are mostly empty space, so it's not solid at all."

This, I think, is the wrong way around. It prompts the question: "so what exactly is the use of the word 'solid'?"

The table hasn't changed simply because we have understood it better. It hasn't suddenly become less solid. What has happened is that we have gained a deeper understanding of precisely what it means for something to be solid.

Likewise, our understanding of the quantum world has not placed a dividing line between that and the macro-world. It has prompted us to question our understanding of the macro world.

---

There is an ancient dictum ‘as above, so below’, which saw man as a kind of epitome of the Universe.

Yes, and this, I've heard, deeply influences all areas of thought up to the Enlightenment: for example, in Shakespeare's plays. Macbeth, for example, is filled with the idea that events in the macrocosm mirror events in the microcosm and that the killing of Duncan sends ripples up into the macro-realm which then re-express themselves in strange portents back down in the microcosm (horses eating each other and stuff).

I guess gods are the superficial anthropomorphistic expression of this. But it goes much further than that.

[Teh]

But that, again, works with the idea that we are talking about principles that underlie 'the manifest realm'. The problem modern empiricism has, as I have said before, is that there is no concept of 'realms' in that sense. Empiricism got rid of the notion of realms of being. So in saying that all sub-atomic entities are the same as each other, that they are in some sense 'one' or 'formless, in effect, they are in some sense able to equated with what is known as 'the unmanifest' or 'the formless' in traditional metaphysics. They don't 'exist' in the way that objects in the empirical realm exist:

What has the Buddhist world-view ever achieved? If the Buddhist world-view bore any relation to what is real, in whatever "realms", then some progress would have been inevitable. The achievements of the scientific-world view, by contrast, is "manifest" all around us. The reason for the difference is that the scientific world view is in some sense isomorphic with reality.

At this point in human history, if you wonder why all "sub-atomic entities are the same", you could ponder "the unmanifest", or "formlessness", which would be a waste of time, or you could think like a scientist and conjecture, "all electrons do not have the same mass", then work out the consequences if that theory were correct. It isn't bye the way.

"Werner Heisenberg" - ...The smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or— in Plato’s sense — Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics.

There are also some great quotes from Bohr e.g.- "There is no quantum reality".

As I have stated many times, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the wavefunction represents an observer's subjective knowledge of a system. Quantum states are not descriptions of quantum systems, but rather reflect the observer's epistemic relation to the system.

I think here we are seeing the re-discovery of the idea that there are such things as 'real intellectual objects' - that is, entities which exist in a purely notional or intellectual way. So I think it is here that materialism, so called, is really challenged by physics itself. You can say 'oh well, this is just what matter is on the smallest scales' - but it is no longer 'matter' in the sense that materialism set out to understand.

The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle explains how and why abstractions are physical.

[Steve3007]

As I have stated many times...

It must be very frustrating. You keep telling people things and they just don't seem to listen do they? I wonder why. Still, as you've said yourself in another thread, it has been conclusively proved that the past is absolutely no indication whatever of what is going to happen in the future. So keep trying.

[Teh]

(Nested quote removed.)


It must be very frustrating. You keep telling people things and they just don't seem to listen do they? I wonder why. Still, as you've said yourself in another thread, it has been conclusively proved that the past is absolutely no indication whatever of what is going to happen in the future. So keep trying.

Yes, it is quite difficult to break down certain peoples prejudice and irrationality, particularly when they are bolstered by an over-inflated ego, but I try. I guess I am just a humble martyr to the cause.

In your case, might I suggest a beginning textbook on philosophy before moving on to the towering philosopher of science: Karl Popper. You do pretend to be interested in science after all!

If you disagree with my view on epistemology (i.e. the refutation of induction) then, my arguments would be the same as Karl Popper's. If you disagree that quantum mechanics is a theory of particles, then my arguments are the same as Richard Feynman:

[Steve3007]

Teh:

The trouble is, as I said before, you've started reading the story of physics at the later chapters and, the evidence on this forum suggests, have misunderstood some very basic concepts and you see the whole subject through the prism of that misunderstanding. Unfortunately, your ... self-confidence does not permit you to find that out.

You also seem to have a very literal way of seeing the world. It is noticeable that a lot of subtlties in conversations tend to go over your head. And you fixate on terminology. Terminology is just the tool. You have to understand the underlying principles.

Read some of Ktulu's posts. You may notice that he uses the word particle to directly signify "elementary particles" a lot more than I do. We put things in different ways. And yet we broadly agree. Because we are both familiar with the underlying concepts that the imperfect English language is trying to express. (Ktulu: if you're reading. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.)

Don't base all your knowledge on snippets from the internet and YouTube clips. Read a proper book. Start by reading some general physics textbooks. Then I would, even in 2012, strongly recommend all 3 volumes of the Feynman Lectures on Physics. They are old and, in many ways, out of date. But still classics.

You could perhaps also read what I was trying to explain to Xris, earlier, about the role of models in science.

You clearly have read and watched a lot about the philosophically exciting and interesting modern "cutting edge" of physics. But, if you really want to understand in detail, you need to also do the boring ground work.

My first degree was in physics and it involved over 2 years of learning mathematical and conceptual foundations before even touching subjects like quantum mechanics.

You need the foundations in place before you can construct the rest of the building. (That was, by the way, an example of an analogy. It would probably annoy Xris.)

---

I'll address some of you specific comments now.

Yes, it is quite difficult to break down certain peoples prejudice and irrationality, particularly when they are bolstered by an over-inflated ego, but I try. I guess I am just a humble martyr to the cause.

Possibly you are being ironic here. But I don't think, if you asked the opinion of many of the posters on here, the word "humble" would spring to mind as a description of your words!

In your case, might I suggest a beginning textbook on philosophy before moving on to the towering philosopher of science: Karl Popper. You do pretend to be interested in science after all!

I studied physics to degree level, taught it at high school, and spent several years writing physics simulation software. I think that's a reasonable amount.

I have read a bit about Popper while studying the philosophy of science as a first year undergraduate. Your comments on the other thread, where you mentioned Popper, seemed to show some confusion.

If you disagree with my view on epistemology (i.e. the refutation of induction) then, my arguments would be the same as Karl Popper's.

Backed up by a big name, so unassailable, eh? If you wish to actually discuss the concept of induction, rather than just drop names, perhaps you could start by answering the question I left you at the end of the "Heliocentric versus Geocentric" thread. And remember: think for yourself about what induction actually is. Don't just read what somebody else has said about that word. Consider the concept, not the word.

If you disagree that quantum mechanics is a theory of particles, then my arguments are the same as Richard Feynman

You have, again, fixated on superficial terminology. This is why I referred to you before as a "stamp collector". Physics needs, more than many other subjects, understanding more than fact and quote collection.


I would be very interested to know if you understand what I mean by all of this?

[Skakos]

The actual answers, insofar as anyone has them, are written in mathematical equations. They are not expressesible in English. As has been stated, they are not *really* particles or *really* waves; there really is no consensus about 'what it all means'; and some of the great scientific minds of the 20th century were completely baffled by it. There are even now battles between different teams of scientists with very different 'models' of what used to be called 'the atom'. It is confusing, contradictory and hard to fathom. I don't know why you believe here is a conspiracy to obscure something, or to deny something, or hide something from you, as I really don't think there is.

Meanwhile if Einstein, Max Planck, and others, say 'there are photons' then as far as I am concerned, that is data that whatever feeble understanding I have managed to acquire has to accommodate. In my view, any argument that is based on the premise that 'Einstein was wrong' in such a fundamental matter, is not worth considering, especially when it is unlikely that those advancing the argument really don't understand the mathematical basis of the claim in the first place.

I agree with that.

The "we discovered this particle" is merely a manifestation of the imagination of a scientist who sees countless data at CERN and decides that he "sees" somewhere in this data the "particle" he struggles to find.