The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[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

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

No, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's an inference on individual motivations. Irrational people have a visceral hatred of reason, they want things that work but without the reason, they want the benefits of reason without having to commit to adhering to it, thus they love QM because it's practical, it gets them the effects they want, without having to dispense with their irrationality. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's simple psychology.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

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.

The quantum based standard model of particles and fields is the most accurate, most correct predicting physics theory ever formulated. It explains all phenomena (at the atomic and subatomic level) they does not involve gravitation. It makes predictions accurate to 12 decimal places to the right of the decimal point. No other theory has as good a track record.

Without quantum field theory the working of semi-conductors would be incomprehensible and without quantum physics radiation, fission and fusion could not be understood or predicted.

I simply do not understand from where you highly inaccurate views of physics come from.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions. However you are not entitled to your own facts.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 20, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[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

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

I partly disagree, but I don't know how to answer you in any other terms but to give you a cursory theory of epistemology somewhat different than your own, and that would be biting off more than I want to chew.

Shayne

[sjw]

I simply do not understand from where you highly inaccurate views of physics come from.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Your reading comprehension is so poor that I don't see the point in replying to your posts. Perhaps if you say something that indicates an even partial grasp of what is being said I might respond.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

I simply do not understand from where you highly inaccurate views of physics come from.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Your reading comprehension is so poor that I don't see the point in replying to your posts. Perhaps if you say something that indicates an even partial grasp of what is being said I might respond.

Shayne

I grasp that you utter mostly nonsense about physics as I have shown to you a number of times. A theory that predicts all non-gravitational phenomena to 12 decimal places and has yet to be falsified must be taken seriously. The figure of merit for any scientific theory is that it makes correct predictions and no false predictions.

You are clearly unaware that Newtonian physics has been empirically falsified. At the nub of the matter is this: Newtonian mechanics is Galilean Invariant and the Universe is (locally) Lorentz Invariant. In short Newtonian mechanics is not generally correct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

I grasp that you utter mostly nonsense

You fail to comprehend and thus perceive nonsense. For example, imagine what it must be like to be a mental retard. Just because nothing makes sense to the retard does not mean that people are uttering nonsense.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I simply do not understand from where you highly inaccurate views of physics come from.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Your reading comprehension is so poor that I don't see the point in replying to your posts. Perhaps if you say something that indicates an even partial grasp of what is being said I might respond.

Shayne

I grasp that you utter mostly nonsense about physics as I have shown to you a number of times. A theory that predicts all non-gravitational phenomena to 12 decimal places and has yet to be falsified must be taken seriously. The figure of merit for any scientific theory is that it makes correct predictions and no false predictions.

You are clearly unaware that Newtonian physics has been empirically falsified. At the nub of the matter is this: Newtonian mechanics is Galilean Invariant and the Universe is (locally) Lorentz Invariant. In short Newtonian mechanics is not generally correct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It seems Shayne has a point. Why do you call QM a theory? If a biologist described an elephant, a zebra, a lion and a wild dog--where's the theory? These animals can do various things, predictable things out of the descriptive material, but all without falsifiable biological theories. From such examinations a biologist may come up with theories about life and living and those would naturally address the questions of why? Why indeed? As such then, QM is physics exactly the same relatively easy way as the primitive descriptive biology assuming it's been aptly described here. Data is not the end-all be-all. It's just uneaten food on your plate.

--Brant

[sjw]

As such then, QM is physics exactly the same relatively easy way as the primitive descriptive biology assuming it's been aptly described here. Data is not the end-all be-all. It's just uneaten food on your plate.

You are correct in principle, but it is not true that QM doesn't contain substantial integrations. The problem is that those integrations contradict one another. E.g., the wave/particle duality, or Bell's Inequality vs. relativity.

The problem is that physicists are at a point where they can say a number of propositions which individually are true:

- It is as if A is B

- It is as if C is D

- It is as if E is F

but all of these propositions contradict each other. They then throw their hands in the air and give up. Then they shamelessly wallow in their giving up (hello Christianity!) and blame the contradictions on the limits of human reason (hello again Christianity!).

Each proposition is individually true, but in order to identify reality, they must rise above "as if", reconcile the contradiction with a new theory that transcends and integrates each perspective. Unfortunately, their goal is not to identify reality.

[Brant Gaede]

As a layman, of course, I cannot continue in this discussion.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

- It is as if A is B

- It is as if C is D

- It is as if E is F

but all of these propositions contradict each other. They then throw their hands in the air and give up. Then they shamelessly wallow in their giving up (hello Christianity!) and blame the contradictions on the limits of human reason (hello again Christianity!).

Each proposition is individually true, but in order to identify reality, they must rise above "as if", reconcile the contradiction with a new theory that transcends and integrates each perspective. Unfortunately, their goal is not to identify reality.

First of all, theories in physics are expressed in mathematical form, not in the form of categorical syllogisms glued together in the form of sorites.

Second, why is it that these theories supposedly based on contradictory premises:

1. Predict accurately to 12 decimal places

2. Have never been empirically falsified (although it is possible that they may be so falsified when better technology yields up better observations).

In short, why do they work so well?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 21, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

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.

I agree that this analysis of "cause and effect" is rather silly when applied to everyday events, like dropping a glass on the floor. It is rather a technical issue and it does become important in advanced physics. But just for example, suppose you have an experiment set up and you repeat it 99% of the times with the same result but then on the 1% of the time you get a different result? You have set the initial conditions as accurately as possible and have observed the "cause and effect" many times yet sometimes it doesn't happen. So, you said "Even controlled scientific experiments cannot reproduce exactly the same conditions. This is neither possible nor necessary to ascertain cause and effect. " Does the "cause and effect" relation you observed only work 99% of the time? Or is there some other factor at work that you are unaware of? If so, what does this do to your "cause and effect" relation?

[sjw]

So, you said "Even controlled scientific experiments cannot reproduce exactly the same conditions. This is neither possible nor necessary to ascertain cause and effect. " Does the "cause and effect" relation you observed only work 99% of the time? Or is there some other factor at work that you are unaware of? If so, what does this do to your "cause and effect" relation?

It is when a theory doesn't explain fully that we know another cause is operating and thus go look for it. If we just said "oh, it's inexplicable" then science would never advance. We keep going until we have explained everything in a non-contradictory manner. Unless you're religious. Then you have to stop somewhere in order to preserve a small corner in your mind for your faith to go. Are you perchance religious?

[sjw]

In short, why do they work so well?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why do you ask why? To ask why implies a cause and an effect, yet you deny the validity of these terms.

The answer was the parts you dismissed because you didn't understand, and you probably won't understand the answer either: it is because they properly identify an aspect of reality. It is *as if* matter is a wave function that collapses when measured. But this premise contradicts other premises, therefore it can't count as a theory, it is merely an extremely useful but contradictory perspective.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

So, you said "Even controlled scientific experiments cannot reproduce exactly the same conditions. This is neither possible nor necessary to ascertain cause and effect. " Does the "cause and effect" relation you observed only work 99% of the time? Or is there some other factor at work that you are unaware of? If so, what does this do to your "cause and effect" relation?

It is when a theory doesn't explain fully that we know another cause is operating and thus go look for it. If we just said "oh, it's inexplicable" then science would never advance. We keep going until we have explained everything in a non-contradictory manner. Unless you're religious. Then you have to stop somewhere in order to preserve a small corner in your mind for your faith to go. Are you perchance religious?

What I am trying to get at is that there is never a single cause => single effect relation in reality. There are always other factors involved and we will never be able to account for them all. No theory will ever fully explain everything. Where did you get this idea?

[George H. Smith]

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.

I agree that this analysis of "cause and effect" is rather silly when applied to everyday events, like dropping a glass on the floor. It is rather a technical issue and it does become important in advanced physics. But just for example, suppose you have an experiment set up and you repeat it 99% of the times with the same result but then on the 1% of the time you get a different result? You have set the initial conditions as accurately as possible and have observed the "cause and effect" many times yet sometimes it doesn't happen. So, you said "Even controlled scientific experiments cannot reproduce exactly the same conditions. This is neither possible nor necessary to ascertain cause and effect. " Does the "cause and effect" relation you observed only work 99% of the time? Or is there some other factor at work that you are unaware of? If so, what does this do to your "cause and effect" relation?

In my example we are not attempting to establish a general law of causation. We are merely identifying a particular cause in a particular case. It might be true that if we threw 100 similar glasses against the wall only 99 of them would break. We could explain this in various ways, e.g., the glass that didn't break wasn't thrown with sufficient force, it hit the wall at a different angle, etc.

We need to keep in mind why I raised the issue of causation in the first place. I mentioned it in connection with the type of induction where we generalize from a limited number of cases, and I pointed out that we can legitimately do this because of the causal principle that the same thing acting under the same conditions will produce the same results. The problem here is not with the causal principle but with the questions: How do we know that our samples are sufficiently similar? And how do we know that the conditions are sufficiently similar?

I used an example from everyday life to illustrate the principle of causation. I did not mean to suggest that identifying causal relationships is always this easy; far from it.

Science seeks far greater precision than we require in ordinary life, and this is why it needs controlled experiments. But these experiments would be pointless if scientists assumed that the same cause acting in the same conditions could produce different effects. In this case, the replication of an experiment would tell us nothing.

On the other hand, we don't need to conduct such experiments when making obvious causal judgments in everyday life. If a convict is executed by hanging, for example, we don't need to conduct experiments to be certain that the hanging was the cause of his broken neck. We don't need to do this because we are not claiming that hanging will always cause a broken neck. Such knowledge is not necessary to justify the claim that this particular hanging caused a broken neck.

Ghs

[sjw]

What I am trying to get at is that there is never a single cause => single effect relation in reality. There are always other factors involved and we will never be able to account for them all. No theory will ever fully explain everything. Where did you get this idea?

It is not the purpose of theories to "explain everything." Where did *you* get this idea?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

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 rabbit hole until you end up claiming that all we can really observe are primitive sense data.

Ghs

I partly disagree, but I don't know how to answer you in any other terms but to give you a cursory theory of epistemology somewhat different than your own, and that would be biting off more than I want to chew.

Shayne

I should clarify something. In saying that we can observe causes and effects, I do not mean that causes and effects can be directly perceived. Cause and effect are abstractions, not concrete things.

I find it useful to distinguish between perception and observation. Observation, as I am using the term here, is perception informed by understanding.

For example, we cannot perceive a football game per se, but we can observe one. Perception reveals individuals running around on a field, etc., but football is a game that operates according to abstract rules, and only if we understand those rules to some degree -- or at least understand that there are rules -- can we be said to be observing the game.

There are many such examples. We cannot directly perceive an economic exchange, because such an exchange occurs when each of the parties surrenders something he values less for something he values more, but we can observe an economic exchange when we understand what is going on. We cannot perceive an act of theft, but we can observe it. We cannot perceive a scientific experiment, but we can observe it. We cannot perceive order in nature, but we can observe it. We cannot perceive an institution, but we can observe it. And so forth.

This is the point I was making about causation. We cannot perceive causation, but we can observe it.

Ghs

[sjw]

This is the point I was making about causation. We cannot perceive causation, but we can observe it.

OK. I don't think we have any substantial disagreement. I think I merely disagree with how you are expressing the idea, particularly when I think Harriman literally means he can perceive causality when he pushes a ball and sees it roll. Ergo my emphasis on reason as the means of grasping causality (and by "reason" I mean the faculty of thinking). I think your use of the word "observe" is fine in a general context, but in this specific context I wouldn't express it that way.

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

In short, why do they work so well?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Why do you ask why? To ask why implies a cause and an effect, yet you deny the validity of these terms.

The answer was the parts you dismissed because you didn't understand, and you probably won't understand the answer either: it is because they properly identify an aspect of reality. It is *as if* matter is a wave function that collapses when measured. But this premise contradicts other premises, therefore it can't count as a theory, it is merely an extremely useful but contradictory perspective.

Shayne

You confuse disagreement with lack of understanding. I understand everything you have said, most of which is either incorrect or distorted. If I may be blunt, you have displayed a singular ignorance of physics as is practiced since the time of the Bernouli brothers. You just don't get it.

You don't know the contents of modern physics. You do not understand the underlying mathematics. What you need to do is cure your ignorance the old fashioned way by identifying what you don't know and learning it.

And the question still stands. If physics is as ill-founded as you claim, why are its predictions so accurate? It is a fair question requiring a response, rather than a denial that the question is valid and fair.

Ba'al Chafatz.

[sjw]

You confuse disagreement with lack of understanding. I understand everything you have said, most of which is either incorrect or distorted.

You've provided no evidence that such is the case.

If I may be blunt, you have displayed a singular ignorance of physics as is practiced since the time of the Bernouli brothers. You just don't get it.

You don't know the contents of modern physics. You do not understand the underlying mathematics. What you need to do is cure your ignorance the old fashioned way by identifying what you don't know and learning it.

Again, mere empty assertions. If they were true, it would be easy to point to something I said and demonstrate how wrong it was. Yet all you do is yammer.

And the question still stands. If physics is as ill-founded as you claim, why are its predictions so accurate? It is a fair question requiring a response, rather than a denial that the question is valid and fair.

I do not say that "physics is ill-founded." I say that modern physicists don't care about causality and hence they are not actually physicists.

I answered why QM's predictions are valid, you simply cannot comprehend the answer. But why don't you answer? All you seem to be able to do is cite how accurate the predictions are. Any mental retard can jump up and down and yammer as you do about how well something "works."

Go on, show me how it's done. Why are QM's predictions so accurate?

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

You confuse disagreement with lack of understanding. I understand everything you have said, most of which is either incorrect or distorted.

You've provided no evidence that such is the case.

If I may be blunt, you have displayed a singular ignorance of physics as is practiced since the time of the Bernouli brothers. You just don't get it.

You don't know the contents of modern physics. You do not understand the underlying mathematics. What you need to do is cure your ignorance the old fashioned way by identifying what you don't know and learning it.

Again, mere empty assertions. If they were true, it would be easy to point to something I said and demonstrate how wrong it was. Yet all you do is yammer.

And the question still stands. If physics is as ill-founded as you claim, why are its predictions so accurate? It is a fair question requiring a response, rather than a denial that the question is valid and fair.

I do not say that "physics is ill-founded." I say that modern physicists don't care about causality and hence they are not actually physicists.

I answered why QM's predictions are valid, you simply cannot comprehend the answer. But why don't you answer? All you seem to be able to do is cite how accurate the predictions are. Any mental retard can jump up and down and yammer as you do about how well something "works."

Go on, show me how it's done. Why are QM's predictions so accurate?

Shayne

Damn it! The whole objective of physics is to make correct predictions. That is what well found science does. It makes (empirically) correct predictions about the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Damn it! The whole objective of physics is to make correct predictions. That is what well found science does. It makes (empirically) correct predictions about the world.

OK, have it your way, go ahead and yammer. Over and out.

[George H. Smith]

Damn it! The whole objective of physics is to make correct predictions. That is what well found science does. It makes (empirically) correct predictions about the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I was under the impression that the objective of science is to give us knowledge of reality, and that predictions, which are used to test theories, are a means to that end. During my college days I had a number of friends who went on to become scientists. Not one ever told me that he wanted to become a scientist because he wanted to be able to predict the future. What they had in common was a passion to understand the world.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Some years ago I watched a television program on string theory. This proved extremely frustrating, because many of the explanations were conceptually incoherent -- there is no other term for it.

Not long afterward, one of my oldest friends visited me for a couple weeks. My friend, a professor of physics who also has a PhD in applied mathematics, and I discussed a number of issues in detail, revisiting some of the disagreements that we had argued about endlessly during our high school and college years. But when I mentioned my problem with string theory, my friend agreed and called it "bunk." He then presented a lengthy and technical criticism which I could not understand, except in a general way.

The most interesting part of this discussion was my friend's observation that the competition for research grants in universities often stifles the development of dissenting theories. I was curious whether anyone on OL has some thoughts on this topic.

Ghs

[merjet]

The most interesting part of this discussion was my friend's observation that the competition for research grants in universities often stifles the development of dissenting theories. I was curious whether anyone on OL has some thoughts on this topic.

I can't speak from personal experience, so I can only guess. There might be some "group-think." On the other hand, dissenting theories can be even less sound than the theory that is challenged.