Can we talk about the philosophy of quantum mechanics here?
Not posting on Veeky Forums, because I don't want to discuss the science, but rather the metaphysical implicaitons.
How do we reconcile our everyday worldview with the proven facts of nonlocality (e.g. quantum entanglement), non-realism (Bell's inequalities) and the special role of the observer (collapse of the wave function)? Obviously these discoveries invalidated a lot of previously popular philosophical theories, for example the Kantian idea of the thing-in-itself or Hume's "is-ought" problem. Did any philosophers address these issues and constructed a new theory of philosophy embracing the knowledge of quantum mechanics?
Leo Perry
>Obviously these discoveries invalidated a lot of previously popular philosophical theories, for example the Kantian idea of the thing-in-itself or Hume's "is-ought" problem
how do you figure
Lincoln Allen
Free will. (layman's understanding) In the smallest scale, matter is not a set of cause and effect rules that strictly determine interactions. It's a probability. A quanta existing in two places gives rise to the possibility of Free Will and the Multiverse.
Gabriel James
This has the potential to be a good thread, but either nobody on this board knows enough about this topic or cares enough to actually discuss it, so I'll just add some of my own input.
There is actually vociferous debate over how to interpret Bell's theorem. Nonlocality is favored by most because while the implications are perturbing, the alternatives are even more so. We can sacrifice a weak formulation of realism (counterfactual definiteness) to save locality, or sacrifice free will to save both (superdeterminism). Superdeterminism would end science as a legitimate practice and denying counterfactual definiteness would essentially make it so that quantum mechanics isn't "about" anything at all, only an extremely precise tool that seems to correspond to observable phenomena the universe can produce. Though if we're to accept nonlocality, then we permit that nature allows for some form of action-at-a-distance. It's a difficult choice to make and one that has profound consequences for the fundamental constitution of the world.
The other thing of note that is particularly interesting is how Wheeler's delayed choice experiments essentially demonstrated that matter is intrinsically undefined at the quantum level. It is neither a particle nor a wave, but something entirely different or in-between. But if we're to take the wave function as a complete description of the physical system, then that is the ontological picture that qm teaches us. The ultimate nature of matter remains profoundly mysterious. As for collapse, I don't have much of a preferred interpretation, only that Copenhagen should not be considered one.
Nothing about QM invalidates Kant or Hume though, don't know how you got that. There are even interesting similarities between transcendental idealism and relativity that were pointed out by Godel. I'd recommend reading some Maudlin, Shimony, Wallace, Albert, and Lewis (two of them) for more on the philosophy of qm. It's fascinating stuff
Robert Davis
Reality is a simulation. The source of reality is from outside the Universe. Computer Science/Information Theory will replace Quantum Physics as the new paradigm in searching for a TOE just as Quantum Physics replaced Newtonian Physics.
It's not complicated dude.
Camden Thompson
lol. what does qm have to do w/ the is/ought problem?
Ayden Roberts
I hope you're right.
Leo Collins
RIP Harambe
Isaac Roberts
no
Landon Young
Get the fuck out of here with your top-tier posts
Asher Gonzalez
see
Angel Turner
You cannot do metaphysical claims avout QM without understanding the field. Reading brian cox isn't understanding the field.
Elijah Harris
whatever happens at very small or very big scales is philosophically irrelevant for us; it's basically a completely isolated universe from ours
Connor Rivera
That's silly to purport
Blake Peterson
Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are all speculation. Nothing can be gleaned for certain from them and we'll probably never discover the exact nature of reality. It's probably quite literally impossible. Sorry to disappoint, OP. They're fun to think about but that's about it.
Charles Morris
At the bare minimum, QM breaks the idea of a deterministic universe dreamt by Newton (begin able to know the exact position of every atom in the universe). Not saying it validates free will but it struck a huge blow to determinism
Benjamin Morris
Much like qunatum interactions free will is an observable phenomen but on the level of individual human beings and up. Or perhaps also some other animals. Quantum interactions are observable phnomena on the sub atomic scale. Enough with the physicalism on this board. Things are not reducible to physics, lets relax with the jerking off of physicists.
Luis Torres
Start with whitehead. Process philosophy in part deals with the consequences of relativity theory and quantum theory. You are late by about 100 years. Suggested reading material is the whitehead britanica articles unless you are planning on becoming a philosopher in which case you can read whitehead's literature which is probably one of the most complex written in 20th century.
Easton Taylor
>simulation is FOTM buzzword hence everything is a simulation. Any more news?
Gavin Flores
>implying that observing matter on the sub atomic scale can tell us anything. What do we care how matter is observed on that scale. It tells us nothing about our lives as humans. It is in no way a more profound look at matter, just a different one that is only observable after certain tools are built and is only nesseccary if one wants to manipulate matter on that scale.
Nathaniel Nguyen
When I say simulation all I mean is that the origin of this Universe is from outside this Universe.
Dylan Johnson
just chiming in as a mathematical physicist who loves metaphysics here
When you try to philosophize on things you don't have a rock solid understanding of, you risk saying at best trivialities, at worse stupid stuff.
Let me get an exemple: saying free will emanates from what you guys think of as the 'inherent randomness' of QM is a nice idea. But if you'd have actually done physics, like calculating boring stuff and trying to work out the maths, you'd know all of this is but an efficient model. Nothing 'true', however you define the word.
It'd be like drawing conclusions in ethics (such as, for instance, rejecting a religion -- nothing wrong with that though obviously) from Copernicus and Gallileo. But as Reichenbach puts it, 20th century theories in physics fundamentally upset these worldviews, so much so actually that any judgement based on those is rendered foolish and, actually, pretty backwards...
I'd say this is a good idea to meditate upon when you hear people basing their paradigm of thought upon things like darwinism, which were much less rigorously founded than heliocentrism, for instance.
Andrew Sullivan
Also, these multiverse and simulation things are foolish ideas coming from physicists of our age who traded the general education of their predecessors with star trek and other childish stuff
William Morris
> collapse of the wave function > he believes in Copenhagen It isn't a proven fact, user. Same for other zany presumptions like existence of infinity universes in many-worlds interpretation.
