The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[BaalChatzaf]

And anyway, who are you guys to talk about what intellectual tools theorists need to do their work? What new theories in any area have you come up with?

Not my line of business. I have however come up with some slight speed up of the numerical algorithms for solving the Einstein Field Equations where there is spherical symmetry. To do good theoretical physics one must have talent. I don't have that talent but I can follow the math the the theoretical physicists use.

Really smashing new breakthroughs come one a century or less frequently. How many years between Newton and Maxwell? Between Newton and Einstein?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Ellen Stuttle]

[...] whether the experiment is alarming/curious/surprising/interesting/unexplained or whatever you want to call it [...].

I have something to thank you for, Shayne -- which is, your posting the link to the 2008 Swiss experiment. I became so intrigued by the comments of "GoodElf," I started perusing the Gilder book, The Age of Entanglement, which we've had sitting around since last Christmas, when I bought it as part of the Christmas collection.

I am blinking FASCINATED -- no feeling of alarm so far, just of fascination. My wheels are spinning dizzily. Maybe I'll come back to earth after awhile.

Meanwhile, a further remark about your remarks about Dragonfly. You speak of:

[...] his completely unwarranted condescending attitude about philosophy and laymen as such.

And say that:

You of all people shouldn't be letting him get away with a bogus conclusion that all philosophers are clueless because 99/100 are.

He doesn't have a condescending attitude about all philosophers, although those for whom he expresses respect might be ones of whom you disapprove. I'll leave him to provide a list, if he wants to.

As to "laymen as such," I don't think he has a condescending attitude toward laymen, though he might be misinterpreted as having such. That "Cobblers should stick to their lasts" aphorism he's fond of using is easily taken amiss, especially by an American reader. I think that what he feels condescension for is people who pontificate on subjects about which they don't bother to learn enough of the subject to know what they're talking about. Best I recall, he has never used that "Cobblers..." response in any discussion with me over the entire 6 years in which I've periodically crossed swords with him on one issue or another. And I'm a layperson as regards physics, though I have acquired a fair amount of second-hand knowledge of physics through 42 years of conversations with Larry and, less regularly, with other physicists.

Ellen

[Xray]

Yes xray, I think catechism is probably a fair assessment of it. Yes, maybe you are too stupid to figure out QM, I don't think you can speak for the rest of us. No it certainly isn't "Objectivist rage."

The only non-laypersons in this current discussion are Dragonfly and Ba'al; DF's post to you clearly showed what you "know" (or better "don't know) about QM. For you wrongly claimed that there are contradictions in QM, and he corrected this fundamental error of yours:

I think the contradictions in QM are well known.

There are no contradictions in QM.

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.

There are no contradictions. Wave/particle duality is an observed phenomenon. Ever heard of an electron microscope? About Bell's inequality: experiments have definitely shown that these are violated, as predicted by QM, ruling out local realistic theories with hidden variables. However, this is not in contradiction to the special theory of relativity.

Shayne, what you you call "contradictions in QM", are not contradictions "in" QM.

What is contradicted by the findings of QM is the naive idea of "objective reality" which laypersons often have.

[To Dragonfly]:

Nevertheless, I have managed to read many dozens of books on the philosophy of science (many written by physicists and other scientists) over the years. How many have you read?

You are wrong in implying that Dragonfly is not well-read in that field.

Don't you recall the exchange where DF mentioned D'Espagnat's work to you? I had the impression that you had never even heard of D'Espagnat ...

Edited August 28, 2010 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

Yes xray, I think catechism is probably a fair assessment of it. Yes, maybe you are too stupid to figure out QM, I don't think you can speak for the rest of us. No it certainly isn't "Objectivist rage."

The only non-laypersons in this current discussion are DF and Ba'al, and DF's post to you clearly showed what you "know" (or better 'don't know') about QM. For you wrongly claimed that there are contradictions in QM, and he corrected this fundamental error of yours:

I think the contradictions in QM are well known.

There are no contradictions in QM.

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.

There are no contradictions. Wave/particle duality is an observed phenomenon. Ever heard of an electron microscope? About Bell's inequality: experiments have definitely shown that these are violated, as predicted by QM, ruling out local realistic theories with hidden variables. However, this is not in contradiction to the special theory of relativity.

Shayne, what you you call "contradictions in QM", are not contradictions "in" QM.

What is contradicted by the findings of QM is the naive idea of "objective reality" which laypersons often have.

The above is correct until you come to the last sentence. When QMechanists describe the action of quantum scale phenomena, they are making what they believe to be statements of objective fact. They don't expect us to dismiss their claims as subjective. Objectivity does not mean incorrigible allegiance to such notions as Newtonian absolute space or the insistence on applying marco-scale criteria such as solidity to quantum-scale phenomena. Objectivity means correspondence to reality no matter how strange that reality may seem. The facts of quantum mechanics do not contradict the notions of laymen. Laymen do not, as laymen, even hold opinions on such issues. What may be contradictory are the ideas of people like Harriman who attempt to apply the "lay" sense of concepts such as particle and wave and space at a scale or in a context where such senses are not applicable. Feynman explains that quite eloquently in the video above.

[Xray edited her original post while this response was being composed. -TK]

Edited August 28, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Dragonfly]

When have I attacked "physicists in general"?

To give an example: "I didn't realize that physicists so readily conceded that some of their theories are self-contradictory."

What theories are self-contradictory?

It's called the "philosophy of science," not "scientific philosophy" (there is no such thing), and in this field you are as much of a layman as I am.

Semantic quibbling. I made the distinction because I'm not talking about historical developments, but about the great impact of modern physics on certain philosophical ideas. To understand the latter, you have to understand more of physics than you can gather from books written for the layman.

Nevertheless, I have managed to read many dozens of books on the philosophy of science (many written by physicists and other scientists) over the years. How many have you read?

It is not the quantity of books that you've read that is important, but what books you've read. The examples you give are telling:

If you wish to see some of the nutty things that even eminent physicists have said about philosophy, see L. Susan Stebbing, Philosophy and the Physicists. This contains an especially good critique of the metaphysical nonsense espoused by the astrophysicist Arthur Eddington. See also Philipp Frank, Philosophy of Science, The Link Between Science and Philosophy. Frank, Einstein's successor at the German Charles-Ferdinand University of Prague, deals effectively with the supposed metaphysical indeterminism of QM. He also deals with a number of other metaphysical claims about QM, pointing out that QM doesn't have many of the metaphysical implications that are often attributed to it. His understanding of the operational definitions used in physics is the key to much of this.

Susan Stebbing's book is from 1958. Eddington died in 1944. Philip Frank's book dates from 1962.

That means that those books may be interesting for a historical view, but that they are useless if you want to know what the philosophical implications of modern physics are, because since 1962 a lot has happened in that field. If you want to read a modern and very informed book, I'd suggest you read Bernard d'Espagnat, On Physics and Philosophy, Princeton University Press, 2002. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but he gives a good and fair overview of the current theories and their philosophical consequences, without ridiculing dissenting opinions, and he knows his stuff.

[Dragonfly]

First question: Am I correct in thinking that according to your understanding of current QM theory there's no longer considered to be a need for an "observer" in "collapsing" the wave equation?

Yes. That is: no conscious observer is needed. Sometimes the interaction with the environment is also called an "observation". See for example E. Joos et al. Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory, 2nd edition, Springer 2003, and Maximilian Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-classical Transition, Springer 2007.

Second question: How long is "relatively recent" re "understand[ing] the mechanism of decoherence"?

I think the first relevant article dates from 1970, but the essential article defining the mechanism was an article by Zurek in 1981, and it became an established theory with experimental verifications in the 1980's and 1990's.

[kiaer.ts]

Yes xray, I think catechism is probably a fair assessment of it. Yes, maybe you are too stupid to figure out QM, I don't think you can speak for the rest of us. No it certainly isn't "Objectivist rage."

The only non-laypersons in this current discussion are DF and Ba'al, and DF's post to you clearly showed what you "know" (or better 'don't know') about QM. For you wrongly claimed that there are contradictions in QM, and he corrected this fundamental error of yours:

I think the contradictions in QM are well known.

There are no contradictions in QM.

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.

There are no contradictions. Wave/particle duality is an observed phenomenon. Ever heard of an electron microscope? About Bell's inequality: experiments have definitely shown that these are violated, as predicted by QM, ruling out local realistic theories with hidden variables. However, this is not in contradiction to the special theory of relativity.

Shayne, what you you call "contradictions in QM", are not contradictions "in" QM.

What is contradicted by the findings of QM is the naive idea of "objective reality" which laypersons often have.

The above is correct until you come to the last sentence. When QMechanists describe the action of quantum scale phenomena, they are making what they believe to be statements of objective fact. They don't expect us to dismiss their claims as subjective. Objectivity does not mean incorrigible allegiance to such notions as Newtonian absolute space or the insistence on applying marco-scale criteria such as solidity to quantum-scale phenomena. Objectivity means correspondence to reality no matter how strange that reality may seem. The facts of quantum mechanics do not contradict the notions of laymen. Laymen do not, as laymen, even hold opinions on such issues. What may be contradictory are the ideas of people like Harriman who attempt to apply the "lay" sense of concepts such as particle and wave and space at a scale or in a context where such senses are not applicable. Feynman explains that quite eloquently in the video above.

[Xray edited her original post while this response was being composed. -TK]

And it is philosophers, and not physicists, BTW, to whom we appeal when we need to clarify whether words have different senses, or whether quantum physicists are making claims of objective fact even as some of them confusedly think they are denying the existence of objective reality..

Edited August 28, 2010 by Ted Keer

[tjohnson]

And it is philosophers, and not physicists, BTW, to whom we appeal when we need to clarify whether words have different senses, or whether quantum physicists are making claims of objective fact even as some of them confusedly think they are denying the existence of objective reality..

OMG, that is hilarious! It's astounding that someone can actually believe this.

[tjohnson]

But the deeper issue is the value of philosophy vs physics, and in that regard there is no question who the winner is.

What I think there's no question of is that what you demonstrate with that statement is your persistence in having a dumb view of what philosophy is. Try doing physics in a culture that doesn't value freedom of inquiry and the advancement of knowledge and without the scientific methodology which is a *philosophical* viewpoint on the universe, and see how far you get.

Ellen

I don't know what you are talking about.

[sjw]

Ellen,

Thanks for the book recommendation.

Shayne

[Xray]

And it is philosophers, and not physicists, BTW, to whom we appeal when we need to clarify whether words have different senses, or whether quantum physicists are making claims of objective fact even as some of them confusedly think they are denying the existence of objective reality..

Can you name a philosopher to whom you would appeal when you need to "to clarify whether words have different senses" (??)

Which competent speaker of the English language needs a philosopher to clarify that e. g. the "word" (= the audiovisual symbol) "sense" can have 'different senses' as you call it?

Which competent speaker of the English language needs a philosopher to clarify that e. g. the sentence "That's a pretty kettle of fish" is not about "pretty" and not about "kettle" and not about "fish"?

And can you name any philosophers to whom quantum physicists 'ought to' appeal in order to clarify if their findings correspond to "objective reality"?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

And it is philosophers, and not physicists, BTW, to whom we appeal when we need to clarify whether words have different senses, or whether quantum physicists are making claims of objective fact even as some of them confusedly think they are denying the existence of objective reality..

Can you name a philosopher to whom you would appeal when you need to "to clarify whether words have different senses" (??)

Which competent speaker of the English language needs a philosopher to clarify that e. g. the "word" (= the audiovisual symbol) "sense" can have 'different senses' as you call it?

Which competent speaker of the English language needs a philosopher to clarify that e. g. the sentence "That's a pretty kettle of fish" is not about "pretty" and not about "kettle" and not about "fish"?

And can you name philosophers to whom quantum physicists "ought to" appeal in order to verify whether their findings represent 'objective' reality?

Please be careful in your paraphrasings. I said that quantum physicists expect their claims to be taken as statements of objective fact. Is it your opinion that physicists do not mean their statements to be taken as statements of objective fact?

As for a good philosopher to refer to to clarify the importance of not equivocating, (i.e., distinguishing the different senses of words) you can look to Aristotle as a pioneer of the idea, or H W B Josephs as a modern authority.

The text of his overmodestly named An Introduction to Logic is available in full on Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=vDgAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[BaalChatzaf]

The text of his overmodestly named An Introduction to Logic is available in full on Google Books. http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

This book was published in 1906, which puts it prior to just about every important development in logic that took place in the 20th century. It is pre-Go'del for example.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

This book was published in 1906,

LOL.... Why are you here? Think you're at a little pond shooting fish or something?

Shayne

[BaalChatzaf]

This book was published in 1906,

LOL.... Why are you here? Think you're at a little pond shooting fish or something?

Shayne

The date as such is not important. The fact that this book was published so early that it missed just about every advance in logic in the twentieth century is important. This book deals primarily with the logic of categorical propositions with some excursions into modalities. There is only one problem: categorical logic is incapable of expressing the kinds of arguments used to prove mathematical theorems. It is a very limited kind of logic.

I have a challenge for you. Using only standard form categorical propositions and using sorites* constructed from standard form syllogisms, prove Prop 47 of Book I of Euclid's Elements. This is the famous Pythagorean theorem on right triangles.

After you have given up on this challenge proceed to prove a more modern theorem using only categorical propositions and categorical sorites the Hilbert Nullstellensatz. On a closed interval [a, b] a continuous function is negative at point a and positive at point b it must be zero somewhere in between.

Let's see how well Good Old Classical Aristotelian Logic does. And let's see how well you do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*Sorites (a Greek term) is a sequence of syllogisms each in one of the fifteen valid standard forms such that the conclusion of an earlier syllogism is the premise of a later syllogism.

Edited August 28, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

The text of his overmodestly named An Introduction to Logic is available in full on Google Books. http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

This book was published in 1906, which puts it prior to just about every important development in logic that took place in the 20th century. It is pre-Go'del for example.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And?

The question was about words having different senses. I provided an adequate response.

As for Goedel, his nonsense was already known to the Scholastics in the Middle Ages. They correctly held that the word "this" in the sentence "this statement is false" has no value if it does not refer to some prior statement. See Insolubles in the Stanford encyclopedia.

Nevertheless, in the particular context of insolubles, while the term transcasus does have an association with time, it does not imply any change of truth value over time. Rather the theory of transcasusheld that in the proposition 'This statement is false', the term 'false' refers not to the proposition in which it occurs, but rather to some proposition uttered earlier. Thus, when the liar says "I am lying," what he really means is "What I said just a moment ago was a lie." If the speaker did not in fact say anything earlier, then his present statement is simply false and no paradox arises

. Edited August 28, 2010 by Ted Keer

[sjw]

This book was published in 1906,

LOL.... Why are you here? Think you're at a little pond shooting fish or something?

Shayne

The date as such is not important. The fact that this book was published so early that it missed just about every advance in logic in the twentieth century is important. This book deals primarily with the logic of categorical propositions with some excursions into modalities. There is only one problem: categorical logic is incapable of expressing the kinds of arguments used to prove mathematical theorems. It is a very limited kind of logic.

I have a challenge for you. Using only standard form categorical propositions and using sorites* constructed from standard form syllogisms, prove Prop 47 of Book I of Euclid's Elements. This is the famous Pythagorean theorem on right triangles.

After you have given up on this challenge proceed to prove a more modern theorem using only categorical propositions and categorical sorites the Hilbert Nullstellensatz. On a closed interval [a, b] a continuous function is negative at point a and positive at point b it must be zero somewhere in between.

Let's see how well Good Old Classical Aristotelian Logic does. And let's see how well you do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*Sorites (a Greek term) is a sequence of syllogisms each in one of the fifteen valid standard forms such that the conclusion of an earlier syllogism is the premise of a later syllogism.

I'm sure it's an interesting challenge, but I've challenged you several times for a rational explanation of why you're here. I mean, Ted fits in, I can tell he's at least somewhat in the Aristotelian/Objectivist tradition, but you seem to have absolutely no common ground with Objectivism at all. I mean Godel? You've gotta be kidding.

Why do you like hanging out with Objectivists? Are you trying to save them? Have fun toying with them? What's in it for you?

Shayne

[Daniel Barnes]

And it is philosophers, and not physicists, BTW, to whom we appeal when we need to clarify whether words have different senses, or whether quantum physicists are making claims of objective fact even as some of them confusedly think they are denying the existence of objective reality..

OMG, that is hilarious! It's astounding that someone can actually believe this.

Yes. The cargo cult of The Word, with The Philosopher as its incarnate high priesthood, has quite a following apparently...;-)

Now I'm back for a bit I'll post Popper's little chart on another thread, if no-one else has already.

[BaalChatzaf]

Why do you like hanging out with Objectivists? Are you trying to save them? Have fun toying with them? What's in it for you?

Shayne

I am the little boy in the Hans Christian Andersen tale - The Emperor's New Clothes-.

One of my hobbies (besides Schadenfreude) is producing counterexamples and piercing inflated balloons with sharp needles.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 28, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

I am the little boy in the Hans Christian Andersen tale - The Emperor's New Clothes-.

One of my hobbies (besides Schedenfreude) is producing counterexamples and piercing inflated balloons with sharp needles.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Because we all know what a great force Objectivists are in the world. Why not poke holes where it might end up doing some good?

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

I mean, Ted fits in, I can tell he's at least somewhat in the Aristotelian/Objectivist tradition, but you seem to have absolutely no common ground with Objectivism at all. I mean Godel? You've gotta be kidding.

I am an orthodox Objectivist at least as far as politics, epistemology, and metaphysics. I differ with Rand somewhat on human nature, which I view as an issue of biology, with the individual as prior. I see Rand's view of human nature as Platonic and biologically uninformed. Hence I differ with her over the source and nature of an individual's values. She derives values top down, rationalistically, from the concept of man as a rational animal. I hold that individuals develop their values bottom up as they mature, beginning with primitive drives such as thirst and a preference for sweet foods and soft, warm touch, and creating more complex integrated values, such as the desire for family and career over time. My view is consonant with the fact that children do not need to be taught that, for instance, they should like the taste of candy. My view of values accounts for individual taste.

If you want to see how I apply Objectivism to values, see my website, Radicals for Happiness.

[BaalChatzaf]

I am the little boy in the Hans Christian Andersen tale - The Emperor's New Clothes-.

One of my hobbies (besides Schedenfreude) is producing counterexamples and piercing inflated balloons with sharp needles.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Because we all know what a great force Objectivists are in the world. Why not poke holes where it might end up doing some good?

Shayne

I do a job on Christian fundamentalists, anti-evolutionists, flat-earth types and anti-science advocates whenever and where ever I can. I attack the welfare state and Nanny state whenever and where ever I can.

I also attack altruism and sentimentalism when and where I can. I am an advocate of lean and mean. Mean is beautiful. Kindness and pity rots.

There are lots of inflated balloons and I have lots of pins.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

I am an orthodox Objectivist at least as far as politics, epistemology, and metaphysics. I differ with Rand somewhat on human nature, which I view as an issue of biology, with the individual as prior. I see Rand's view of human nature as Platonic and biologically uninformed. Hence I differ with her over the source and nature of an individual's values. She derives values top down, rationalistically, from the concept of man as a rational animal. I hold that individuals develop their values bottom up as they mature, beginning with primitive drives such as thirst and a preference for sweet foods and soft, warm touch, and creating more complex integrated values, such as the desire for family and career over time. My view is consonant with the fact that children do not need to be taught that, for instance, they should like the taste of candy. My view of values accounts for individual taste.

It sounds to me like you're bringing up something that could exist in harmony with Rand's view on values, not something that contradicts it, though certainly she did not emphasize "bottom-up" values (I'm sure Frank Lloyd Wright would approve). Considering it only briefly, emphasizing that as you do sounds like an essential aspect of the whole picture.

I have disagreements with Rand across the whole spectrum, though I have only worked out in detail my political differences. On the whole, I view her philosophy approximately as she views Aristotle's. I think her fiction painted a great vision of a philosophy that could and should exist, I think she fulfilled the primary goal she set out to in life, but I think her non-fiction didn't live up to her vision, and tragically, she decided to add a commandment to it "thou shalt not extend or contradict Objectivism." This is a disaster which has virtually guaranteed that her admirers remain admirers rather than participants in her vision of man.

Shayne

[sjw]

There are lots of inflated balloons and I have lots of pins.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good one!

Well, I guess I sort of understand you now.

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

There are lots of inflated balloons and I have lots of pins.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good one!

Well, I guess I sort of understand you now.

Shayne

So he admits he's a little prick.