Philosophy Discussion Forums

Ktulu wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I agree with everything you wrote here.


(Nested quote removed.)

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 --


(Nested quote removed.)


I don't see any contradictions.

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


(Nested quote removed.)


I see the contradictions.

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


(Nested quote removed.)


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)

Exactly. We continue the charade. The particle has become particularly difficult for many to accept as an illusion. Even when they accept the evidence against it they cling to it like biblical fanatics. If you notice when I get near to getting them to accept a doubt they become excited energetic particles.

Ktulu wrote: 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.

I would like to ask the question: in regards to which 'matter' in particular? I am aware that he was wrong in trying to disprove what became known as 'entanglement' but the particular claim I made was that Einstein was able to demonstrate mathematically that photons exist. Whether they always exist, whether they exist when not being measured, and so on, might be a different argument. But is anyone able to produce a refereed journal article which states that 'photons don't exist'?

-- Updated December 3rd, 2012, 7:30 am to add the following --

Oh, google is a marvellous thing.

One of Einstein’s 1905 papers was “On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light,” which proposed a simple model to explain the photoelectric effect using quantized light. A single light-quantum comes along, hits an electron inside a metal, and provides all the energy needed to knock it loose. This model is a radical change in the way we look at light– Einstein referred to it as the only truly revolutionary thing he did in his career– but it reproduces all of the observed results. It even stands up to hostile investigation– the American physicist Robert Millikan set out to disprove Einstein’s model, and wound up confirming it in every detail .

Would I be correct in saying that 'the single light-quantum' is, in fact, 'the photon'?

If a photon as a particle exists why am I not having my questions answered. They are concepts to explain a phenomena. If you really believe photons exist make them visible in terms that make sense without resorting to mystical interpretations. Why do they appear to bounce when required and other times become absorbed? Why is it that they have no mass, no shape, generated at maximum speed, continue indefinitely, do not experience time? do not experience acceleration but can be slowed? The list of impossibilities for photons and electrons is growing to such a degree that even Einstein would be forced to re look at his reasoning. He would not be arguing to accept his historic understanding.

Xris wrote:If a photon as a particle exists why am I not having my questions answered. They are concepts to explain a phenomena. If you really believe photons exist make them visible in terms that make sense without resorting to mystical interpretations. Why do they appear to bounce when required and other times become absorbed? Why is it that they have no mass, no shape, generated at maximum speed, continue indefinitely, do not experience time? do not experience acceleration but can be slowed? The list of impossibilities for photons and electrons is growing to such a degree that even Einstein would be forced to re look at his reasoning. He would not be arguing to accept his historic understanding.

In order to prove something is "real" to you, you will first have to provide your criteria for "reality". May I suggest the following well known one:

'If according to the simplest explanation, an entity is complex and autonomous, then that entity is real.'

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


In order to prove something is "real" to you, you will first have to provide your criteria for "reality". May I suggest the following well known one:

'If according to the simplest explanation, an entity is complex and autonomous, then that entity is real.'

It is made complex by the misunderstanding. It is hardly independent of external reasoning. I am not denying light or any other EM phenomena, simply because I do not believe electrons or photons as particles exist.

Xris wrote:[ It is made complex by the misunderstanding. It is hardly independent of external reasoning. I am not denying light or any other EM phenomena, simply because I do not believe electrons or photons as particles exist.

O.K. How about this:

"If a substantial amount of computation is required to give us the illusion that a certain entity is real, then the entity is real."

What's your alternative?

Quotidian wrote:They [sub-atomic particles] don't 'exist' in the way that objects in the empirical realm exist

Werner Heisenberg wrote: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

Steve wrote: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.

I don't disagree at all. Because the notion of what it means to exist, is not the same with regards to 'the smallest units' as it is with 'ordinary physical objects', this reveals the extent to which the usual notion of 'existence' is based on certain assumed characteristics, which are not evident at the sub-atomic scale. You more or less say the same thing here:

Steve wrote: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.

Quite so! It turns out a physical object does not seem to be reducible into 'smaller physical objects', as the nature of those objects, or units, is not what we understand as 'physical'. My philosophical claim in all of this is that physics has undermined materialism, because it has undermined the idea of matter as consisting of ultimate indivisible mathematical points. It also introduces the role of the 'observer' in determining the nature of reality.

If you ask the man in the street what the universe consists of, he would likely say 'atoms'. Most materialist philosophers likewise assume that atoms are still 'fundamental particles', where the term 'fundamental' is taken to mean that they provide an explanatory role as to the nature of reality. But the description of them in essentially mathematical terms undermines that sense of solidity and independence that they are supposed to have. So I think that the discovery of qm was essentially a second scientific revolution, which philosophy, on the whole, and biology, also, have not caught up with yet.

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


O.K. How about this:

"If a substantial amount of computation is required to give us the illusion that a certain entity is real, then the entity is real."

What's your alternative?

Many thirsty travellers have been convinced of mirages. it does not make the mirage real because everyone can see it.

Alternative, what do want me to do, build a house on top of a sky scraper?

Xris wrote: Many thirsty travellers have been convinced of mirages. it does not make the mirage real because everyone can see it.

Alternative, what do want me to do, build a house on top of a sky scraper?

I presume, given that you claim some things are real, and that other things are not real, that you base these opinions on some sort of criterion.

Why do you think electrons don't exist given there is overwhelming evidence for their existence. What is really there, and where did we go so wrong?

____________

You guys are brilliantly informed and present your arguments quite eloquently (in most cases ).

However, almost everything being presented in this thread is nothing more than a stale rehash of the same fundamental arguments that took place between Bohr and Einstein as captured in the iconic photographic below...



The white flag of surrender to the mystery of the subatomic realm was waved long ago (according to Wikipedia) by physicist David Mermin in the famous quote: "shut up and calculate."

Which roughly translates as — don't drive yourself and others crazy trying to envision the literal nature of the substance that Schrödinger's wave equations apply to.

Instead, just "shut up" and accept the fact that the equations "work" and that's all you really need to be concerned with.

What that ultimately exemplifies is that nothing regarding the true features of the quantum realm is ever going to be resolved by using the same old arguments and visualization methods used in the past.

We need a new way of looking at the issue if we ever hope to understand it.

This incessant bickering over the ontology of "particles" and "waves" is a perennial exercise in futility and completely misses what is truly important about quantum mechanics — in other words, what it actually does for us.

What quantum mechanics does is nothing short of allowing us to reach into the informational underpinning of the universe (no matter how "fuzzy" it may be) and virtually transform the original "clays of creation" into our own personal "designer clays of creation."

(Please don't make me list the vast array of technological advances resulting from QM; you know what I am talking about.)

I personally believe that by looking at the "plasticity" of reality and how it can be manipulated and changed according to the dictates of consciousness (in this case via the application of wave mechanics - a triumph of "mind over matter") is where the truth will be found.

(IMO) in the end, what reality itself is made of (we're talking about "material" reality here) will ultimately be a logical construct of a malleable energy essence that is intimately conjoined with (and subservient to) life and consciousness.

seeds

I personally believe that by looking at the "plasticity" of reality and how it can be manipulated and changed according to the dictates of consciousness (in this case via the application of wave mechanics - a triumph of "mind over matter") is where the truth will be found.

(IMO) in the end, what reality itself is made of (we're talking about "material" reality here) will ultimately be a logical construct of a malleable energy essence that is intimately conjoined with (and subservient to) life and consciousness.

seeds

You got my vote.

It does matter if you desire the truth.We are not debating the technical advantages we have secured. The concept of particles influences more than any other theoretical reasoning. In cosmological terms it has steered us to accept an expanding universe,black holes, dark energy and so much more. It has also created an industry of creative thinking, inventing the many world theory and a belief that we as observers are influencing the very fabric of the universe. In philosophical terms the resulting influences on metaphysics is beyond calculation. In now appears the only way my concerns can be answered is by attacking my lack of academic education, attached to or by others simply ignoring me. You must now see Steve why I sometimes act like a martyr.

Seeds wrote:
What quantum mechanics does is nothing short of allowing us to reach into the informational underpinning of the universe (no matter how "fuzzy" it may be) and virtually transform the original "clays of creation" into our own personal "designer clays of creation."

You are confusing the question of the existence of an electron, with the interpretation of the equations we use to describe its dynamics.

Someone might claim the Earth exists. To then argue that Kepler's rules, or Newton, or General Relativity isn't a perfect description of reality, therefore the Earth don't exist, would be viewed as ridiculous.

The question "do electrons exist" could have been asked any time since they were identified in 1897, before the discovery of quantum mechanics.

"Xris" refuses to explain his criterion for accepting something is real. I have my suspicions why that is so.

Teh wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You are confusing the question of the existence of an electron, with the interpretation of the equations we use to describe its dynamics.

Someone might claim the Earth exists. To then argue that Kepler's rules, or Newton, or General Relativity isn't a perfect description of reality, therefore the Earth don't exist, would be viewed as ridiculous.

The question "do electrons exist" could have been asked any time since they were identified in 1897, before the discovery of quantum mechanics.

"Xris" refuses to explain his criterion for accepting something is real. I have my suspicions why that is so.

What formula would you say explains the electron as a particle? What one formula out of the three really gives it substance? If it is accepted not to be a firm figure why is it necessary to give it substance. Ask Steve the different alternatives that I have considered. It is no secret. Bill Gaede has an alternative, I have considered, but he to has problems. Fails to fully explain the consequences of his concept. When the universe is known to be 95% electromagnet energy why should particles be seen as a crucial aspect of the phenomena we experience. This EM energy is mass. The problem arises how this mass communicates via EM energy. We appear to be incapable of imagining energy in its purest form, we need substance. Our imagination demands it. Gaedes EM ropes give us clue to what it might be but can we imagine EM ropes. What are they made of. I for one have no idea but I am capable of asking questions. I either do not receive answers or am castigated for doubting the status quo.

Xris wrote: What formula would you say explains the electron as a particle? What one formula out of the three really gives it substance? If it is accepted not to be a firm figure why is it necessary to give it substance. Ask Steve the different alternatives that I have considered. It is no secret. Bill Gaede has an alternative, I have considered, but he to has problems. Fails to fully explain the consequences of his concept. When the universe is known to be 95% electromagnet energy why should particles be seen as a crucial aspect of the phenomena we experience. This EM energy is mass. The problem arises how this mass communicates via EM energy. We appear to be incapable of imagining energy in its purest form, we need substance. Our imagination demands it. Gaedes EM ropes give us clue to what it might be but can we imagine EM ropes. What are they made of. I for one have no idea but I am capable of asking questions. I either do not receive answers or am castigated for doubting the status quo.

You are simply evading the question: "What is real to you, Xris?" Why don't you answer it?

You claim that "the universe is known to be 95% electromagnet[sic] energy". Could you do me a favour and put numbers to the following: 1. The total energy of the universe. 2. What the other 5% is?