The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[BaalChatzaf]

I wouldn't be surprised if physicists a hundred years from now look upon current theories of Quantum Mechanics in the same way that we now look upon Newton's theories.

If they do then the'll have lost it even worse than today's cast of physicists -- the fundamental difference between Newton's theories and QM is a real respect for causality. QM is not a causal theory, so it isn't even a theory, it is merely descriptive.

Wrong! Quantum Theory (in particular quantum field theory) makes predictions that are good to 12 decimal places following the decimal point. In fact, without quantum theory, the properties of semi-conductors cannot be comprehended. Classical Electrodynamics is wrong (it cannot account for the stability of atoms) and the classical theory of light cannot explain the photo-electric effect. The Standard Model of Particles and Fields is the best physics theory ever formulated. Anything that predicts to 12 places cannot be denigrated.

You are right about one thing: QM is about phenomena which is all we have. All notions of cause are hypothetical since event A has never been observed causing event B. (See Hume on this issue).

[sjw]

Wrong! Quantum Theory (in particular quantum field theory) makes predictions that are good to 12 decimal places following the decimal point. ...

Sigh... I wasn't arguing that the equations are incorrect. Obviously the math is describing something real very accurately, but the physics isn't there. There is no coherent causal explanation of what is going on. And that is what physics is all about.

I'll add that it's not that there aren't theories that exist that seem to provide a causal explanation, it's that the host of modern physicists are, like you, so epistemologically corrupt that any attempt to provide a causal explanation is viewed, on its face, as crackpottery.

[George H. Smith]

I wouldn't be surprised if physicists a hundred years from now look upon current theories of Quantum Mechanics in the same way that we now look upon Newton's theories.

If they do then the'll have lost it even worse than today's cast of physicists -- the fundamental difference between Newton's theories and QM is a real respect for causality. QM is not a causal theory, so it isn't even a theory, it is merely descriptive.

Wrong! Quantum Theory (in particular quantum field theory) makes predictions that are good to 12 decimal places following the decimal point. In fact, without quantum theory, the properties of semi-conductors cannot be comprehended. Classical Electrodynamics is wrong (it cannot account for the stability of atoms) and the classical theory of light cannot explain the photo-electric effect. The Standard Model of Particles and Fields is the best physics theory ever formulated. Anything that predicts to 12 places cannot be denigrated.

You are right about one thing: QM is about phenomena which is all we have. All notions of cause are hypothetical since event A has never been observed causing event B. (See Hume on this issue).

We observe causation all the time. See the many critics of Hume on this.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

I wouldn't be surprised if physicists a hundred years from now look upon current theories of Quantum Mechanics in the same way that we now look upon Newton's theories.

If they do then the'll have lost it even worse than today's cast of physicists -- the fundamental difference between Newton's theories and QM is a real respect for causality. QM is not a causal theory, so it isn't even a theory, it is merely descriptive.

Wrong! Quantum Theory (in particular quantum field theory) makes predictions that are good to 12 decimal places following the decimal point. In fact, without quantum theory, the properties of semi-conductors cannot be comprehended. Classical Electrodynamics is wrong (it cannot account for the stability of atoms) and the classical theory of light cannot explain the photo-electric effect. The Standard Model of Particles and Fields is the best physics theory ever formulated. Anything that predicts to 12 places cannot be denigrated.

You are right about one thing: QM is about phenomena which is all we have. All notions of cause are hypothetical since event A has never been observed causing event B. (See Hume on this issue).

We observe causation all the time. See the many critics of Hume on this.

Ghs

No sir. You see event A followed by event B (A, B are event types). You never observe the connection between the two. Keep your eye on what you see, not on what you suppose you have seen. Your mind (i.e. your supposing imagination) is what provides the connection.

Nature provides the dots. Humans connect them.

Ba'al Chaatzaf

Edited August 20, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

What is a "causal theory"?

[sjw]

We observe causation all the time. See the many critics of Hume on this.

Causation is inferred. It is an answer to the question: why is something behaving in a certain way? Providing the answer requires reasoning.

[sjw]

What is a "causal theory"?

It's a redundancy. All theories are causal theories. They all identify why something happens.

[tjohnson]

As indicated by my earlier quote from H.W.B. Joseph, I have been discussing not a specific theory but the general principle of causal regularity, which is a necessary presupposition of all inductive reasoning and of scientific procedures that employ instruments, not to mention a number of other things. To call this an "assumption," as if science might (or already has) disproved it, is absurd. Science could not get to first base without it.

Suppose you want to fly cross-country. I doubt if you would get into your car, turn on the ignition, and expect it to fly. Nor do I think you would go from car to car, hoping eventually to find one that will fly.

Suppose someone were to ask why you would not do this. Would you say, "I assume that cars cannot fly -- but, who knows, science may eventually prove me wrong"? I hope not. In fact, you know that (normal) cars cannot fly, and you needn't worry in the least that later discoveries will prove you wrong. (I am obviously referring to cars as they presently exist, not to possible futuristic cars of the sort seen in science fiction films.)

I agree with you about assumptions of the sort made by Newton. They are tentative presuppositions of a particular theory that might be proven wrong. Given the rapid advances in science, I wouldn't be surprised if physicists a hundred years from now look upon current theories of Quantum Mechanics in the same way that we now look upon Newton's theories.

Ghs

I am at a loss to understand what you are getting at. You seem to be saying that we can legitimately expect things to work as they normally do, which is fine, but it this remarkable in any way? It seems so obvious that one wonders why you would mention it at all.

[George H. Smith]

As indicated by my earlier quote from H.W.B. Joseph, I have been discussing not a specific theory but the general principle of causal regularity, which is a necessary presupposition of all inductive reasoning and of scientific procedures that employ instruments, not to mention a number of other things. To call this an "assumption," as if science might (or already has) disproved it, is absurd. Science could not get to first base without it.

Suppose you want to fly cross-country. I doubt if you would get into your car, turn on the ignition, and expect it to fly. Nor do I think you would go from car to car, hoping eventually to find one that will fly.

Suppose someone were to ask why you would not do this. Would you say, "I assume that cars cannot fly -- but, who knows, science may eventually prove me wrong"? I hope not. In fact, you know that (normal) cars cannot fly, and you needn't worry in the least that later discoveries will prove you wrong. (I am obviously referring to cars as they presently exist, not to possible futuristic cars of the sort seen in science fiction films.)

I agree with you about assumptions of the sort made by Newton. They are tentative presuppositions of a particular theory that might be proven wrong. Given the rapid advances in science, I wouldn't be surprised if physicists a hundred years from now look upon current theories of Quantum Mechanics in the same way that we now look upon Newton's theories.

Ghs

I am at a loss to understand what you are getting at. You seem to be saying that we can legitimately expect things to work as they normally do, which is fine, but it this remarkable in any way? It seems so obvious that one wonders why you would mention it at all.

I mentioned it because this presupposition is the foundation of much of our inductive reasoning. I thought this would have been clear from my recent posts.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

What is a "causal theory"?

It's a redundancy. All theories are causal theories. They all identify why something happens.

And you do not think QM attempts to explain why things happen at the subatomic level?

[George H. Smith]

I wouldn't be surprised if physicists a hundred years from now look upon current theories of Quantum Mechanics in the same way that we now look upon Newton's theories.

If they do then the'll have lost it even worse than today's cast of physicists -- the fundamental difference between Newton's theories and QM is a real respect for causality. QM is not a causal theory, so it isn't even a theory, it is merely descriptive.

Wrong! Quantum Theory (in particular quantum field theory) makes predictions that are good to 12 decimal places following the decimal point. In fact, without quantum theory, the properties of semi-conductors cannot be comprehended. Classical Electrodynamics is wrong (it cannot account for the stability of atoms) and the classical theory of light cannot explain the photo-electric effect. The Standard Model of Particles and Fields is the best physics theory ever formulated. Anything that predicts to 12 places cannot be denigrated.

You are right about one thing: QM is about phenomena which is all we have. All notions of cause are hypothetical since event A has never been observed causing event B. (See Hume on this issue).

We observe causation all the time. See the many critics of Hume on this.

Ghs

No sir. You see event A followed by event B (A, B are event types). You never observe the connection between the two. Keep your eye on what you see, not on what you suppose you have seen. Your mind (i.e. your supposing imagination) is what provides the connection.

Nature provides the dots. Humans connect them.

Ba'al Chaatzaf

Here's a scenario for you.

You are visiting a friend, and while he is out of the room you throw your drink against the wall. The glass shatters, spreading shards and liquid over the floor. Your friend hears the noise, comes back in, and sees the mess. He asks, "What caused this?" And you reply, "I didn't actually observe the cause, but I do have a hypothesis. I did see event A (my throwing a glass against the wall) followed by event B (the shattering of the glass), so, if we use our imaginations to connect the dots, we might suppose that the two events are connected in some way."

Say something like this and see how long before your friend throws you out and/or suggests that you visit a psychiatrist.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

We observe causation all the time. See the many critics of Hume on this.

Causation is inferred. It is an answer to the question: why is something behaving in a certain way? Providing the answer requires reasoning.

It is through reasoning (and previous experience) that we know we are observing cause and effect. Consider my earlier example (in my reply to Ba'al) of the broken glass. You wouldn't throw the glass against the wall not knowing what to expect, and then, after it breaks, reason that you caused the mess on the floor. Rather, you would know beforehand that this would happen, so in observing what happens you are observing cause and effect.

Ghs

[Xray]

As for the term "conrete", feel free to plow through ITOE and you will see the cascade of contradictions:

You list some things and never point to the alleged contradiction. I realize it is self-evident to you what you do not grasp, but I can't read your mind. By "concrete" I take Rand to mean the most specific things possible, those things in reality that are ultimately referred to by abstractions, whether entity, action, or attribute. It does not seem that difficult a concept to grasp, I am at a loss as to why it is driving you nuts.

Sjw,

There is no need for you to read my mind. All you need to read is what it says about "concrete" in ITOE and do the litmus test with examples. Per Rand's own premise, angels exist! Don't believe me?

Here goes (bolding mine);

Rand, ITOE, p. 10: Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e. that stands for an unlimited number of concetes of a certain kind. "

Now let's look at her definition of concrete:

"Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abstractions_and_concretes.html

Okay then:

Premise 1: Every word is a symbol that stands for an unlimited number of concretes.

Premise 2: A concrete is that which exists.

Conclusion: From these premises it follows that the word "angel" is a symbol referring to an unlimited number of concretes, and a concrete is that which exists.

Ergo: angels exist. Who would have thought of anything written ITOE being a "theist's delight", but that sure is one.

No surprise, is it, that Objectivists are often reluctant to illustrate and explain with examples the theories Rand presents in ITOE ...

Could you name some of those criticisms and elaborate?

Yes.

What are they?

Sigh... I wasn't arguing that the equations are incorrect. Obviously the math is describing something real very accurately, but the physics isn't there. There is no coherent causal explanation of what is going on. And that is what physics is all about.

I'll add that it's not that there aren't theories that exist that seem to provide a causal explanation, it's that the host of modern physicists are, like you, so epistemologically corrupt that any attempt to provide a causal explanation is viewed, on its face, as crackpottery.

Sjw,

No one stops you from attempting to provide a causal explanation of yet unanswered questions in quantum physics. Maybe you will be the one who provides the world with revolutionary new explanations in that field? Who discovers a 'hidden variable'?

There exists of course also the possibility that homo sapiens sapiens, despite the incredible amount of knowledge acquired during his time on earth, is, at his current stage of Evolution, cerebrally not equipped enough to understand QM fully. Just as a chimpanzee watching a soccer game has no "causal" explanation for many of the things he sees either because his cerebral equipment is limited.

Maybe there exist other beings in the universe to whom what is so mysterious to us is no mystery at all, and we appear to them as cerebrally undeveloped as ants appear to us.

But like I said, don't let anything stop you, sjw. Don't let the 'ant' example discourage you. Evolution is an ongoing process, so there's some billion years left for homo sapiens sapiens to evolve cerebrally enough to understand much more than we, the current ancestors, are able to understand.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Xray

[sjw]

And you do not think QM attempts to explain why things happen at the subatomic level?

It doesn't attempt to resolve the inconsistencies in the various perspectives involved, on the contrary, it puts them on display as if they are trying their hardest to create a mockery of theory.

[sjw]

It is through reasoning (and previous experience) that we know we are observing cause and effect. Consider my earlier example (in my reply to Ba'al) of the broken glass. You wouldn't throw the glass against the wall not knowing what to expect, and then, after it breaks, reason that you caused the mess on the floor. Rather, you would know beforehand that this would happen, so in observing what happens you are observing cause and effect.

You aren't observing cause and effect, you're relating what you are currently observing to past thinking. It's so immediately available to you that it might feel like observation, but it isn't.

Shayne

[sjw]

No one stops you from attempting to provide a causal explanation of yet unanswered questions in quantum physics. Maybe you will be the one who provides the world with revolutionary new explanations in that field? Who discovers a hidden variable?

No one stops me from providing a causal explanation, but the institutionalized religion that worships inconsistency and acausality would prevent it from having any impact whatsoever.

Rand said don't question a folly, just ask what it accomplishes. When Newton's theories came out, it helped cause the American Revolution -- the liberation of mankind. Cold water had to douse that fire as quickly as possible, otherwise people might come to believe in the perfectibility of man here on earth and the consequent political philosophy of liberty. The political forces are very strongly motivated to stamp out any inquiry into whether QM can be put on a solid theoretical foundation.

[tjohnson]

The political forces are very strongly motivated to stamp out any inquiry into whether QM can be put on a solid theoretical foundation.

What does politics have to do with QM? I can see some relation to global warming theories, but not QM.

[sjw]

What does politics have to do with QM? I can see some relation to global warming theories, but not QM.

It is fairly obvious. QM is used as propaganda to discredit reason, which discredits its corollary, freedom. If physics were put on a rational foundation, the one that Newton had begun, then that would be a massive force for changing the mind of the common man, to turning his mind to reason and freedom instead of faith and force. Therefore, QM must be used to discredit man's rational faculty as much as possible, and no one with any rational explanation for it can ever be allowed to get a PhD or hold a job.

Shayne

[Xray]

No one stops you from attempting to provide a causal explanation of yet unanswered questions in quantum physics. Maybe you will be the one who provides the world with revolutionary new explanations in that field? Who discovers a hidden variable?

No one stops me from providing a causal explanation, but the institutionalized religion that worships inconsistency and acausality would prevent it from having any impact whatsoever.

This is the place to provide your causal explanations, swj. "Inconsistency" and "acauasality" have no place in Rand's mind, so what prevents you from presenting your case on a forum frequented by many Objectivists?

Isn't it the quality of arguments supported by evidence which counts? So why don't you say: "These are my argumets and here is my supporting evidence. Feel free to test it!", and then sit back and wait what possible opponents come up with? You don't come across to me as being timid, so why don't you just take the plunge?

Rand said don't question a folly, just ask what it accomplishes

Can you think of anything which Rand might have regarded as a "folly" in quantum theory?

Edited August 20, 2010 by Xray

[tjohnson]

You are visiting a friend, and while he is out of the room you throw your drink against the wall. The glass shatters, spreading shards and liquid over the floor. Your friend hears the noise, comes back in, and sees the mess. He asks, "What caused this?" And you reply, "I didn't actually observe the cause, but I do have a hypothesis. I did see event A (my throwing a glass against the wall) followed by event B (the shattering of the glass), so, if we use our imaginations to connect the dots, we might suppose that the two events are connected in some way."

First of all, what was in the drink? I hope it wasn't good scotch. The thing about "cause and effect" is that it is impossible to reproduce the exact same conditions twice. Have you ever dropped a glass on the floor and be surprised to see that it didn't break? There are so many factors or variables that we ignore or don't know about that we can never say with 100% sure that a single cause is responsible for a single effect. Also, there always exists an interval of time between cause and effect, even if its a small interval, and the possibility that some other factor can be involved in this interval exists. I think this is primarily a semantic issue and, although there is an orderly universe out there, we shouldn't confuse order of events with causation. Why not simply say "when these conditions are met then this happens (usually)".

[tjohnson]

What does politics have to do with QM? I can see some relation to global warming theories, but not QM.

It is fairly obvious. QM is used as propaganda to discredit reason, which discredits its corollary, freedom. If physics were put on a rational foundation, the one that Newton had begun, then that would be a massive force for changing the mind of the common man, to turning his mind to reason and freedom instead of faith and force. Therefore, QM must be used to discredit man's rational faculty as much as possible, and no one with any rational explanation for it can ever be allowed to get a PhD or hold a job.

Shayne

That is one huge conspiracy theory there! I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that.

[BaalChatzaf]

What does politics have to do with QM? I can see some relation to global warming theories, but not QM.

It is fairly obvious. QM is used as propaganda to discredit reason, which discredits its corollary, freedom. If physics were put on a rational foundation, the one that Newton had begun, then that would be a massive force for changing the mind of the common man, to turning his mind to reason and freedom instead of faith and force. Therefore, QM must be used to discredit man's rational faculty as much as possible, and no one with any rational explanation for it can ever be allowed to get a PhD or hold a job.

Shayne

Nonsense. Quantum Electrodynamics is the best physics theory ever devised. Its predictions are good to 12 decimal places. On the other hand, Newton's theory of gravitation is wrong. It does not account for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Maxwell's Electrodynamics is wrong. It does not account for the stability of atoms. According to Maxwell's theory the motion of electrons around the nucleus should radiate out energy completely and the electrons should collapse upon the nucleus of the atom.

Shayne, where do you get your mistaken ideas from? Philosophy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

You are visiting a friend, and while he is out of the room you throw your drink against the wall. The glass shatters, spreading shards and liquid over the floor. Your friend hears the noise, comes back in, and sees the mess. He asks, "What caused this?" And you reply, "I didn't actually observe the cause, but I do have a hypothesis. I did see event A (my throwing a glass against the wall) followed by event B (the shattering of the glass), so, if we use our imaginations to connect the dots, we might suppose that the two events are connected in some way."

First of all, what was in the drink? I hope it wasn't good scotch. The thing about "cause and effect" is that it is impossible to reproduce the exact same conditions twice. Have you ever dropped a glass on the floor and be surprised to see that it didn't break? There are so many factors or variables that we ignore or don't know about that we can never say with 100% sure that a single cause is responsible for a single effect. Also, there always exists an interval of time between cause and effect, even if its a small interval, and the possibility that some other factor can be involved in this interval exists. I think this is primarily a semantic issue and, although there is an orderly universe out there, we shouldn't confuse order of events with causation. Why not simply say "when these conditions are met then this happens (usually)".

If the glass doesn't break, so what? Liquid will still spill on the floor, and your friend will ask what caused that.

Even controlled scientific experiments cannot reproduce exactly the same conditions. This is neither possible nor necessary to ascertain cause and effect.

As for the interval of time in which another cause might intervene, okay, this might happen in some cases. But what do you suppose that intervening cause could be in my example? A malicious, invisible demon who pushed the glass along? If not, then what would constitute a reasonable alternative explanation?

Do you seriously believe that you would be less than 100 percent certain about the cause in my scenario? A respect for science is great, but it should not smother one's common sense.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

It is through reasoning (and previous experience) that we know we are observing cause and effect. Consider my earlier example (in my reply to Ba'al) of the broken glass. You wouldn't throw the glass against the wall not knowing what to expect, and then, after it breaks, reason that you caused the mess on the floor. Rather, you would know beforehand that this would happen, so in observing what happens you are observing cause and effect.

You aren't observing cause and effect, you're relating what you are currently observing to past thinking. It's so immediately available to you that it might feel like observation, but it isn't.

Shayne

Many observations are theory-laden. Suppose I say that I saw a man steal my car. Would you reply that I saw no such thing, that all I really saw was a man break into my car and drive it away, and that "steal" is a value-laden term that I have imposed on my observation? Indeed, we could even say that I never observed my car at all, for "my" indicates ownership, and ownership is an abstraction that signifies a moral and/or legal relationship between a person and an object. We cannot observe ownership per se. And what about the car itself? "Car" is also an abstraction, a mental category that we impose on things that have certain characteristics.

You can keep going down this epistemological rabbbit hole until you end up claiming that all we can really observe are primitive sense data.

Ghs

[sjw]

This is the place to provide your causal explanations, swj. "Inconsistency" and "acauasality" have no place in Rand's mind, so what prevents you from presenting your case on a forum frequented by many Objectivists?

Isn't it the quality of arguments supported by evidence which counts? So why don't you say: "These are my argumets and here is my supporting evidence. Feel free to test it!", and then sit back and wait what possible opponents come up with? You don't come across to me as being timid, so why don't you just take the plunge?

Why do you care? You aren't an Objectivist. You're just here to pick Objectivism apart. And incidentally, I'm not one either, although I agree with Rand's basic values, I believe in a knowable universe that is rationally comprehensible and follows the laws of cause and effect. I think Rand painted a great vision but then didn't follow through as well as she thought she did.

Can you think of anything which Rand might have regarded as a "folly" in quantum theory?

I think the contradictions in QM are well known. She obviously didn't accept the idea that reality would contradict itself, so any contradictions in the theory imply an error in the theory. Of course physicists get around this by then denying that QM is anything other than a description, but then they're not doing physics so who even cares what they think.