The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics

[George H. Smith]

[so you believe the species might evolve and give birth to a non-living, man-made musical instrument? Are you trying to win a lifetime achievement award for absurdity?

No, but you are well on the way to winning such an award for a serial inability to read!...;-)

Why don't you just tell us what your point was. I didn't get it either. You used some ambiguous phrasing.

Ghs

[Daniel Barnes]

Indeed, the person here who keeps using the authority card over and over and over while never addressing substance is you.

Indeed, just as the one person who keeps proclaiming how boldly original he is as a thinker turns out to be the most hilariously brittle defender of the orthodox vacuities.

I think Upton Sinclair explained this type of behaviour well when he observed how difficult it is to get a man to understand something that his income depends on him not understanding.

Just what problems in the area do you think it solves?

Let the waffling begin!...;-)

[George H. Smith]

So why do you hang around on OL? I don't recall that you have ever said anything positive about Rand or her ideas. And when you criticize Rand's ideas, it is invariably with a sneer, as if she was obviously incompetent.

Heh. No doubt religious types say the same thing about you.

No, actually many of them don't. ATCAG got a favorable review in The Christian Century, for example. And I have always gotten along well in Christian chatrooms (though I haven't participated in one for around 7 years now). This is because I go to enemy turf in order to learn about the people and their beliefs. I always identified myself and stated that I didn't expect to convert anyone or have them convert me; I wanted to know why they believe what they do. It is only when I am on my home field that I write polemical and acerbic posts.

You still didn't answer my question. Why do you hang around on OL so much? Do you expect to learn anything from a bunch of people who admire a philosopher who, in your estimation, has nothing of value to offer? From your elevated perspective, we differ little from Flat Earthers, So what's the point? What can you learn from Flat-Earthers?

How about a serious answer, for once.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

You're getting closer to addressing substance, George.

I'll answer the substantive part and ignore the rhetoric and caricature.

Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.

He's right in regard to the issue of whether there's quantum indeterminism, which was the issue being discussed back when you started the "appeal to authority" theme.

Ghs: Apparently one needs to know a lot about physics in order to say anything about it.

ES: No, but thorough ignorance isn't a good position from which to pronounce about such lofty sounding issues as "metaphysical indeterminism."

What lofty pronouncements would those be? Metaphysical indeterminism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. Hence the term metaphysical. Maybe you should take notes as we go along.

"Metaphysical [emphasis] indeterminism" is your presumption about the implications of quantum theory.

[ES:] As I've pointed out twice before, you claim to accept the experimental findings and then proceed to demonstrate that you haven't a clue what they are. Hell, you don't even understand what non-local hidden variables means while you busily proclaim that the law of identity...does what exactly? Just what problems in the area do you think it solves?

Physics presupposes causation, so how do you propose to disprove causation by means of it? Physicists cannot suspend the rules of reasoning when it suits their purpose. I don't care how you dress it up; from our inability to determine the cause of X, you cannot legitimately conclude that X has no cause. This is an invalid inference no matter how much you babble on about non-local hidden variables.

If you disagree, then you show me how you have determined that at least some events are causeless.

You're conflating "causation" with "determinist causation." I grant you that there are physicists who loosely equate the two in non-technical remarks and sometimes in technical work as well. But "determinist causation" doesn't exhaust the category "causation."

Physics presumes that there are regularities in nature -- natural law -- and that at least some of those regularities can be discovered. The best statement of this I've read is in a book called Life Itself by Robert Rosen. I haven't time to type in his discussion now, but I think he did a very good job. You could probably peruse the book on the web.

A presupposition of determinism -- at any instant, there's only one physically possible future (roughly van Imwagen's definition) -- has long been bedrock of classical mechanics.

I am actually one who argues that this bedrock presupposition is contradicted by the very enterprise of doing physics, that effective volition is necessary in order for there to be testing of theories. DF and I disagree on this point. He sees no epistemological problem with determinism.

The issue with quantum mechanics is that determinism apparently doesn't hold on the quantum level, that there, unlike in classical mechanics, outcomes of interactions are only probabilistic, that it isn't the case that at any instant there's only one physically possible future.

One can posit, well, there must be some factor which makes one result (solution of the wave equation) come up rather than another. There are those who posit such a factor (a "hidden variable," i.e., something which hasn't been detected but is operative).

Most notably David Bohm posits what he calls a "causal interpretation." However: (1) He doesn't provide predictions which are different from what's observed, so there isn't a way to detect his "quantum potential"; (2) His theory would require violation of the speed of light being the speed limit for the transfer of information. Physicists are reasonably reluctant to throw out special relativity just because of weird stuff happening at the quantum level. Furthermore, talk about metaphysical implications of a really far-out kind, Bohm got way out into those as his career progressed. Here's an indication:

link

One is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classical idea of analyzability of the world into separately and existing parts … We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent ‘elementary parts’ of the world are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely particular contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather, we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is the fundamental reality, and that relatively independent behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within this whole. (David Bohm, On the Intuitive Understanding of Nonlocality as Implied by Quantum Theory, Foundations of Physics, vol 5, 1975)

n the Fifties, I sent my book (Quantum Theory) around to various quantum physicists - including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Wolfgang Pauli. Bohr didn't answer, but Pauli liked it. Albert Einstein sent me a message that he'd like to talk with me. When we met he said the book had done about as well as you could do with quantum mechanics. But he was still not convinced it was a satisfactory theory.

Einstein's objection was not merely that it was statistical. He felt it was a kind of abstraction; quantum mechanics got correct results but left out much that would have made it intelligible. I came up with the causal interpretation (that the electron is a particle, but it also has a field around it. The particle is never separated from that field, and the field affects the movement of the particle in certain ways). Einstein didn't like it, though, because the interpretation had this notion of action at a distance: Things that are far away from each other profoundly affect each other. He believed only in local action.

I didn't come back to this implicate order until the Sixties, when I got interested in notions of order. I realized then the problem is that coordinates are still the basic order in physics, whereas everything else has changed. (David Bohm, On Quantum Theory, Interview, 1987)

Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground. (David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987)

Younger physicists usually appreciate the implicate order because it makes quantum mechanics easier to grasp. By the time they're through graduate school, they've become dubious about it because they've heard that hidden variables are of no use because they've been refuted. Of course, nobody has really refuted them. [Emendation: He's including both local and non-local hidden variables. The tests of the Bell Inequalities don't rule out non-local hidden variables, but then there's the faster-than-light problem.] At this point, I think that the major issue is mathematics. In supersymmetry theory an interesting piece of mathematics will attract attention, even without any experimental confirmation. (David Bohm, On Mathematics & Modern Physics, 1987)

So, do you like that theory? A lot of mystics do. Most physicists find quantum indeterminism much more digestible.

Ellen

PS: I'm guessing I'm not going to get an answer to the question: "On what basis do you rank Stephen Hawking as a great physicist?"

[sjw]

Einstein's true contribution was not letting metaphysics get in the way of understanding space and time (or should I say space-time). Einstein's elder colleague Lorentz had all this stuff before Einstein but he refused to let go of the aether and conventional views of time. Einstein cut to the quick of the issue and that is why he is famous. If you look at Lorentz 1904 paper you will see most of the formulas for which Einstein is famous. That is why they call the transform the Lorentz transform, not the Einstein transform. Lorentz had it all in front of him and was blinded by philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think Lorentz was on the right track. The aether was dismissed on specious grounds.

Shayne

Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I wouldn't say what I said if I wasn't already quite familiar with it.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Indeed, the person here who keeps using the authority card over and over and over while never addressing substance is you.

Indeed, just as the one person who keeps proclaiming how boldly original he is as a thinker turns out to be the most hilariously brittle defender of the orthodox vacuities.

When did I ever claim that I was "boldly original"? Cite even one instance. I did say that you are an unoriginal and mediocre hack, but that's a different issue.

I think Upton Sinclair explained this type of behaviour well when he observed how difficult it is to get a man to understand something that his income depends on him not understanding.

My source of income has absolutely nothing to do with the points I have been arguing here. If you are going to throw a zinger, at least keep it in the ballpark. Moreover, I have made a living for 40 years as a freelance philosopher. Care to give that a try? You would be on the street rattling a tin cup in a matter of days.

So how is your anti-Rand website going? Do you plan to start an anti-Schopenhauer website? I think that could be very useful. Then you might try an anti-Leibniz website. That would be most impressive.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And here's a news flash for you, Ellen. The fact that you happen to be married to a physicist does not make you some kind of authority on physics. You are a former book editor and a housewife, and I take you no more seriously in this field than I take my next door neighbor.

I want to apologize to Ellen for saying this. It was inappropriate.

George,

To be honest, I find truth in both of your comments.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Have you ever had an original idea in your life?

More hapless flailing. Actually, my ideas are the sole source of my livelihood, and pretty much always have been.

[BaalChatzaf]

Einstein's true contribution was not letting metaphysics get in the way of understanding space and time (or should I say space-time). Einstein's elder colleague Lorentz had all this stuff before Einstein but he refused to let go of the aether and conventional views of time. Einstein cut to the quick of the issue and that is why he is famous. If you look at Lorentz 1904 paper you will see most of the formulas for which Einstein is famous. That is why they call the transform the Lorentz transform, not the Einstein transform. Lorentz had it all in front of him and was blinded by philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think Lorentz was on the right track. The aether was dismissed on specious grounds.

Shayne

Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I wouldn't say what I said if I wasn't already quite familiar with it.

Shayne

Then shame on you. The negative result of the MMX and ALL successor experiments made with better technology indicate the absence of a visco-elastic medium filling all of space, this medium being stiffer than steel (in order to propagate vibrations at light-speed by transverse vibrations) and rarer than virtue in order not to slow down planets as they plow through this Marvelous Mystery Substance without heating up and radiating away their energy of motion.

There is not a smidgin of empirical evidence indicating the presence of this Marvelous Substance. Not a bit. Nada. Zip, Nothing. In addition to which, everything that can be explained with aether can also be explained without aether.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited September 5, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[sjw]

I wouldn't say what I said if I wasn't already quite familiar with it.

Shayne

Then shame on you. The negative result of the MMX and ALL successor experiments made with better technology indicate the absence of a visco-elastic medium filling all of space, this medium being stiffer than steel (in order to propagate vibrations at light-speed by transverse vibrations) and rarer than virtue in order not to slow down planets as they plow through this Marvelous Mystery Substance without heating up and radiating away their energy of motion.

On the contrary, shame on you for being so lacking in imagination that you think that an aether of some kind would lead to the kind of friction you refer to here.

Shayne

[Daniel Barnes]

So why do you hang around on OL? I don't recall that you have ever said anything positive about Rand or her ideas. And when you criticize Rand's ideas, it is invariably with a sneer, as if she was obviously incompetent.

Heh. No doubt religious types say the same thing about you.

No, actually many of them don't. ATCAG got a favorable review in The Christian Century, for example. And I have always gotten along well in Christian chatrooms (though I haven't participated in one for around 7 years now).

So what? I have a number of Objectivist friends too. We like to argue, it's fun. So sue me.

How about a serious answer, for once.

How about a serious question?

[Xray]

Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.

Source please. Where did DF say that? So please provide direct quotes from the post(s) plus the links to the complete post(s).

And has it ever entered your mind that a physicist can of course (like any person possessing the mental capacity do so) acquire "expertise in the realm of philosophy" if he/she is interested in that field as well?

You certainly won't deny that even self-educated persons can acquire "expertise in the realm of philosophy".

Throughout his life Einstein denied that QM entails metaphysical indeterminism, and he did so primarily on metaphysical grounds. Smart guy, that Einstein.

Ghs

So you think "God doesn't play dice" was a smart comment?

Edited September 5, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.

He's right in regard to the issue of whether there's quantum indeterminism, which was the issue being discussed back when you started the "appeal to authority" theme.

First, DF did not confine his generalization to one issue.

Second, indeterminism in QM is an operational method of analysis, one that physicists are compelled to use because of measurement limitations and problems. I have no problem with this.

"Metaphysical [emphasis] indeterminism" is your presumption about the implications of quantum theory.

Quite the reverse. I have contended all along that the operational use of indeterminism in QM does not entail metaphysical indeterminism. The former carries no metaphysical implications whatsoever. It neither refutes causation nor proves it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.

Source please. Where did DF say that? So please provide direct quotes from the post(s) plus the links to the complete post(s).

Has it ever entered your mind that physicists can of course (like any person possessing the mental capacity do so) acquire "expertise in the realm of philosophy" should their interest happen to be directed toward this field?

I'm not going to plow through a mountain of posts for your convenience. This issue was discussed at some length a while back. If DF failed to make himself clear, then he can always correct my misunderstanding. But he made the point very clearly on at least two occasions that I can recall. What do you think much of this debate has been about?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

So why do you hang around on OL? I don't recall that you have ever said anything positive about Rand or her ideas. And when you criticize Rand's ideas, it is invariably with a sneer, as if she was obviously incompetent.

Heh. No doubt religious types say the same thing about you.

No, actually many of them don't. ATCAG got a favorable review in The Christian Century, for example. And I have always gotten along well in Christian chatrooms (though I haven't participated in one for around 7 years now).

So what? I have a number of Objectivist friends too. We like to argue, it's fun. So sue me.

How about a serious answer, for once.

How about a serious question?

You pretty much answered the question. You visit OL because you like to argue. I'm so glad we are able to keep you amused. Lucky us.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Have you ever had an original idea in your life?

More hapless flailing. Actually, my ideas are the sole source of my livelihood, and pretty much always have been.

Then why don't you present those ideas here? I've never seen a glimmer of one.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

And here's a news flash for you, Ellen. The fact that you happen to be married to a physicist does not make you some kind of authority on physics. You are a former book editor and a housewife, and I take you no more seriously in this field than I take my next door neighbor.

I want to apologize to Ellen for saying this. It was inappropriate.

George,

To be honest, I find truth in both of your comments.

Michael

Yes, to a degree, but it was still over the top. The "housewife" crack in particular was a cheap shot.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

Shayne,

You cross-posted with my long reply to George in post #1329. If you missed that, please read it. I think it might be helpful to you in understanding why a lot of physicists place Bohm's theory in the category of medicine that's worse than the disease.

Ellen

[Xray]

Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.

Source please. Where did DF say that? So please provide direct quotes from the post(s) plus the links to the complete post(s).

Has it ever entered your mind that physicists can of course (like any person possessing the mental capacity do so) acquire "expertise in the realm of philosophy" should their interest happen to be directed toward this field?

I'm not going to plow through a mountain of posts for your convenience. This issue was discussed at some length a while back. If DF failed to make himself clear, then he can always correct my misunderstanding. But he made the point very clearly on at least two occasions that I can recall. What do you think much of this debate has been about?

Ghs

What much of this debate was about on your part could hardly missed: it was about who is the top dog, and for some reason you seem to believe you are entitled to the rank. Simple as that.

True enough. As far as this thread is concerned, I make a special point to read posts by a handful of people, even though I sometimes disagree with them and they often disagree with each other, sometimes vociferously so. These members interest me because they show original thought and do much more than repeat the latest trendy philosophical interpretations of physics. I may forget to mention someone, and if so I apologize in advance, but the names of frequent contributors that come readily to mind (in no particular order except as they occur to me) are:

Ted Keer, Martin Radwin, sjw, Brant Gaede, Dennis Hardin, Ninth Doctor, and Merlin Jetton.

Ghs

The common denominator guiding your selection is clear enough: none of those listed questions Rand's premises.

Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.

Ellen Stuttle: That is a straightforward appeal to authority in the realm of philosophy. Got it?

I have no doubt George got it, but this does not imply he'll admit it here.

Ghs: Apparently one needs to know a lot about physics in order to say anything about it.

Notice how Ghs is blowing smoke to direct the attention away from the point made?

Ellen Stuttle: No, but thorough ignorance isn't a good position from which to pronounce about such lofty sounding issues as "metaphysical indeterminism."

Ghs: What lofty pronouncements would those be? Metaphysical indeterminism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. Hence the term metaphysical. Maybe you should take notes as we go along.

George, could you please give an example of "metaphysical indeterminism"?

As for your advice to your discussion opponents to take notes: rest assured I will take notes as we go along. I always do.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Xray

[Ellen Stuttle]

And here's a news flash for you, Ellen. The fact that you happen to be married to a physicist does not make you some kind of authority on physics. You are a former book editor and a housewife, and I take you no more seriously in this field than I take my next door neighbor.

I want to apologize to Ellen for saying this. It was inappropriate.

George,

To be honest, I find truth in both of your comments.

Michael

Yes, to a degree, but it was still over the top. The "housewife" crack in particular was a cheap shot.

Ghs

No cheaper than other details of your fusillade.

Sorry, I can't accept the apology for that particular remark, since if I did, I'd seem to be giving a pass to other things you've said which are significantly worse. Apologize for accusing me of sucking up to an authority figure; then I'll accept the apology.

Ellen

[sjw]

Shayne,

You cross-posted with my long reply to George in post #1329. If you missed that, please read it. I think it might be helpful to you in understanding why a lot of physicists place Bohm's theory in the category of medicine that's worse than the disease.

Ellen

I don't find any physicist who throws metaphysics out the window as credible. To me the fundamental issue here is whether we can comprehend reality or whether we must be satisfied with merely describing it. Bohm is trying. In other words he's actually doing physics. Ironically I think Einstein helped get the whole enterprise off track, as relativity is an ametaphysical theory. And then he ends up not liking the results when applied to QM.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

And here's a news flash for you, Ellen. The fact that you happen to be married to a physicist does not make you some kind of authority on physics. You are a former book editor and a housewife, and I take you no more seriously in this field than I take my next door neighbor.

I want to apologize to Ellen for saying this. It was inappropriate.

George,

To be honest, I find truth in both of your comments.

Michael

Yes, to a degree, but it was still over the top. The "housewife" crack in particular was a cheap shot.

Ghs

No cheaper than other details of your fusillade.

Sorry, I can't accept the apology for that particular remark, since if I did, I'd seem to be giving a pass to other things you've said which are significantly worse. Apologize for accusing me of sucking up to an authority figure; then I'll accept the apology.

Ellen

Your appeals to authority, especially in regard to DF, have been egregious.

So go fuck yourself, housewife.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

This is what you get when the moderator refuses to moderate.

[sjw]

This is what you get when the moderator refuses to moderate.

A ridiculous responsibility you're foisting on the "moderator", who isn't paid to be a moderator to go around wiping noses and resolving disputes, but just somebody who's opened up his door for guests to come visit. Put the blame where it belongs.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

This is what you get when the moderator refuses to moderate.

I offered an Olive Branch, but Ellen demanded the entire tree. She has repeatedly insulted me in this exchange, and you don't see her offering to apologize. I have no problem with this -- tempers often flare in the midst of a heated argument, and I regard this as a normal part of the process, one that I don't take seriously -- but if Ellen can't take it, she shouldn't dish it out.

Ghs