Home | Community | Message Board

Out-Grow.com - Mushroom Growing Kits & Supplies
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Anonymous

An example of using the principles of logic.
    #1738968 - 07/22/03 05:09 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Among the first principles of Greek logic is the rule governing the truth and falsity of incompatible propositions:either that both cannot be true, though both may false, or that one must be true and the other false. Underlying this rule is an ontological axiom-a truth about reality-that the Greeks thought was self-evident; namely, that nothing can be and not be at the same time, and that nothing can both have and not have a certain characteristic or attribute at the same time.

Of the two presuppositions underlying the logic of truth (the first concerning the existence of an independent reality, the second concerning reality's being determinate in itself), the first is challenged by modern idealistic philosophies and the second by the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics. The realism of common sense, the realism that underlies all our dailiy activities, suffices, in my opinion, to dispose of the basic mistake made by idealistic philosophers.

The error involved in the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty lies in one extraordinary philosophical mistake made unwittingly or defiantly by twentieth-century physicists. It is the error of restricting reality to what is measureable by physicists, attributing to reality only its measureable characteristics. As I have pointed out earlier, Stephen Hawking et al, from Einstein on, identify time with physically measureable time. Physicists may not be interested in time they cannot measure, but that is quite different from saying unmeasureable time does not exist.

The same mistake is involved in converting Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty in our measurement of the position and velocity of a moving electron into the proposition that, at a given moment in time, the electron does not have a completely determinate velocity and position. The principle should be understood as attributing uncertainty only to our measurements in quantum mechanics.

That uncertainty, which is epistemic, or in our field of knowing, is fallaciously converted into an indeterminacy in the structure of reality, which then becomes ontological, not epistemic. The fact that the ontological determinateness of the electron's position and velocity is not measureable by physicists and so is of no interest to them does not mean it has no real existence, any more than time not measureable by physicists lacks reality.

The substitution of the word "indeterminacy" for the word "uncertainty" indicates the illicit conversion by the Copenhagen school of a subjective into an objective probability.

Agree or dissagree?

Fight it out amongst yourselves.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePyronate
Prying open mythird eye

Registered: 07/06/03
Posts: 100
Loc: Forever I walk among the ...
Last seen: 20 years, 9 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1738981 - 07/22/03 05:17 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Agree.


--------------------
"It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom... keep that in mind at all times."

--Bill Hicks (RIP)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1738988 - 07/22/03 05:20 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Einstein said that "god does not play dice" with the universe. He spent much of his life trying to disprove Heisenberg's principle.

Physicists are rather fond of believing that logic does not govern quantum-events. Personally I believe that this only appears to be so because we do not have a full understanding of reality yet.

Indeterminate...I like that.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1739029 - 07/22/03 05:32 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Electrons seem very insignificant to me, I can punch this wall right now, and I know that the wall is there. That's the truth, and the quibbling of quantum mechanics nerds won't change my mind. I really don't care if they can't accurately measure the positions of the electrons in the wall. I don't lose any sleep over it.

As scientists continue to discover more underlying principles of physics, they might find that it all resolves into a system that makes sense. The fact is scientists are still very unclear as to why events happen on a quantum mechanics level. Hence their internal confusion and horrible sense of fashion.


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: pattern]
    #1739042 - 07/22/03 05:37 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

As scientists continue to discover more underlying principles of physics, they might find that it all resolves into a system that makes sense.

And that is actually a very scientific observation! Most physicists believe that the universe is, at some level or another, VERY orderly. String theory relies in some ways on this idea: that the universe is based on certain symmetrical principles. We think that the Final Theory will be full of symmetries and will be fairly "compact", at least compared to our current theories.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepattern
multiplayer

Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739097 - 07/22/03 05:54 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I agree with that! Personally I believe that the universe is made of a massive conglomeration of many simple things, following many simple rules, interacting to generate complexity.


--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleinfidelGOD
illusion

Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: pattern]
    #1739105 - 07/22/03 05:59 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

what if it was made up of a massive conglomeration of an infinite number of simple things? then it would not only generate complexity but uncertainty.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 15 years, 22 days
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739122 - 07/22/03 06:05 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

yeah, but where will the room for authentic human achievement in a perfectly symmetrical reality? I see symmetry in nature, but I also see alot of anomaly.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 15 years, 22 days
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Malachi]
    #1739129 - 07/22/03 06:06 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

what's wrong with uncertainty? unless there's uncertainty there's no room for achievement.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,397
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 3 days, 10 hours
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Malachi]
    #1739271 - 07/22/03 06:47 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

There must be a specific cause or a combination of causes for each and every effect, even though we cannot measure and predict the cause(s), but such view also explains what we observe with quantum phenomena without violating the Heisenberg principle. We cannot measure, we thus cannot always predict, but everything (except for free will, i think) is explained by causes.

MAIA



--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala



Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Malachi]
    #1739716 - 07/22/03 09:02 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Pssst. I didn't say perfectly symmetrical  :wink:

There are certain "symmetries" that we find in physics. Some are relatively straight-forward (like Einsteins equivalence principle), and some are abstractly mathematical.

That is not to say that reality is symmetrical. Only that some parts of the universe are symmetrical or obey symmetries.

String theory is full of symmetries, but most of them are of the abstract kind  :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739885 - 07/22/03 09:55 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

"As scientists continue to discover more underlying principles of physics, they might find that it all resolves into a system that makes sense."

how can you say that, when every logical question that is asked genrates ten more?

Anyone who seriously believes in determinism needs to spend more time studying relativity. Also, Godel's incompleteness theorem:

There will always be certain kinds of problems that cannot be solved by systematic analysis, since within every system of axioms, questions always appear that can niether be proved nor disproved on the basis of the axioms that define the system.

thats pretty much the best verbal understanding of Godel that I can muster, he proved it in math, but im not a mathemetician.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1739906 - 07/22/03 10:04 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

If you ask a question, and it leads to more questions, that is a progression forward through the chain.

When we search for the Final Theory in physics, we are tracing the chain backwards to the FIRST peice.

M-Theory, Superstrings, GUTs, and Unified Fields. They're all examples of the underlying symmetries found by physics working backwards.

:wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739913 - 07/22/03 10:08 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

"M-Theory, Superstrings, GUTs, and Unified Fields. They're all examples of the underlying symmetries found by physics working backwards."

they are all crappy, incomplete theories that will eventually be wiped off the blackboard and replaced with some new trendy incomplete theory.

The true nature of the universe and humanity's understanding of it have an asymptotic relationship. We will approach total understanding getting closer and closer, but we will never get there. There will always be new things to explore and new skills to accquire. the universe is infinite.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1739921 - 07/22/03 10:10 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

On that issue, I guess we will have to agree to disagree :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: trendal]
    #1739950 - 07/22/03 10:22 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

"On that issue, I guess we will have to agree to disagree"

awesome.  I really respect your civility.  I'll start paying more attention to your posts :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1740017 - 07/22/03 10:54 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I think the ultimate irony is that the thing that struck down full scientific determinism and everyday logic,quantum mechanics,was completely derived from logic and determinism.
When you visit the sub atomic realm,things like logic and causiality don't mean shit. I think humans are very arrogant in the fact that they think they can grasp the ultimate truth through their imperfect minds. Like someone else in this thread stated,you will get closer and closer,but never quite get there.The universe is an irrational number and our minds like to think in fractions.

As anyone else here studied quantum mechanics and thought they lost some of their sanity? :nut:


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Edited by grandmasterfat (07/22/03 11:26 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/06/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1740075 - 07/22/03 11:20 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


Among the first principles of Greek logic is the rule governing the truth and falsity of incompatible propositions:either that both cannot be true, though both may false, or that one must be true and the other false. Underlying this rule is an ontological axiom-a truth about reality-that the Greeks thought was self-evident; namely, that nothing can be and not be at the same time, and that nothing can both have and not have a certain characteristic or attribute at the same time.





I think were I stand on this issue is evident in my sig.

Quote:

The error involved in the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty lies in one extraordinary philosophical mistake made unwittingly or defiantly by twentieth-century physicists. It is the error of restricting reality to what is measureable by physicists, attributing to reality only its measureable characteristics. As I have pointed out earlier, Stephen Hawking et al, from Einstein on, identify time with physically measureable time. Physicists may not be interested in time they cannot measure, but that is quite different from saying unmeasureable time does not exist.





I think most higher end physicists don't actually hold the view that the only things that exist are scientifically measurable. They are scientists after all,and it's seen as kind of pointless to try to measure something that is immeasurable. And they deal with "unmeasurable time" time all the time (wow,I just used time three times in a row) in the sub atomic realm.
I think Paul Davies actually did a study were he sent out an anonymous questionaire to random physisists and suprisingly,most held religious and metaphysical belief systems.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 4 months, 11 days
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1740445 - 07/23/03 04:44 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quantum indeterminacy and Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty are actually two separate things.

Quantum indeterminacy is the observation that a single electron or photon can propagate as a wave, extended in space, where the square of the wave amplitude is proportional to the probability of finding the particle in a specific region.

It's similar (but not exactly so) to the following thought experiment: You give someone a box containing 1001 identical marbles and ask them which marble is the 1001th one, the "extra" marble. The answer is not determinate, it depends on how you look for the marble, and on what the other marbles are doing. For example, you can partition the box into imaginary compartments containing 10 marbles each, except for one that contains 11 marbles. That is one way of localizing the extra marble. Then shake the marbles in that compartment to make the "extraness" propagate into the surroundings. The next time you look for the extra marble its location will be indeterminate again, but a little less indeterminate than the first time.

One could even define a wave function for the extra marble by calculating the density of marbles at various places in the box, and then subtract the corresponding density for a box with 1000 marbles evenly spread out (the background "vacuum state").

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that some measurements are mutually incompatible, like position and momentum. This is a natural consequence of the wave description, since there is a mathematical relationship between the length of a wavetrain (uncertainty of position) and the spread of its spectrum of wavelengths (uncertainty of momentum).

What this boils down to is that our conception of an electron as a tiny particle with a well-defined newtonian momentum and position is not correct. There is no conflict with logic. But momentum is well-defined only in the macroscopic world. On the quantum level it is equivalent to wavelength, and wavelength is only well-defined for pure sine waves of infinite extent. Those are idealizations, real waves never look exactly like that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1740574 - 07/23/03 08:44 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

There are a couple of reasons I don't post here anymore. The amount of available time I have is just one.

The point(s) I was making have been missed by many, primarily because of their familiarity with science instead of philosophy. Your interpretation, while certainly the most cogent of the lot, has a only a slight resemblance to the way these facts have been interpreted by many physicists and certainly the understanding of these principles by the masses educated as they are by the popular press.

For a completely different take on the interpretation of the facts by another physicist read on.

"One of the first things that a student in science or engineering acquires at the beginning of his college career is a sublime confidence in the objectivity of the scientific method and the unimpeachable status of the results thereof, along with a rather critical and condescending attitude toward other fields of learning which operate on a less exact basis. I still have a very vivid recollection of the amusement with which my classmates and I looked upon a statement in our economics textbook wherein the author commented on the theory of wages which he had just expounded at great length. This statement admitted that the theory did not produce the right results, but the author went on to say that he could not think of any better explanation, and consequently this one must be right anyway. Certainly, we students told ourselves, it was a pleasure to be identified with a branch of knowledge in which conclusions are reached by logical and mathematical processes rather than by any such ridiculous reasoning as this.

But those of us who have subsequently had occasion to leave the beaten path in the course of research work of one kind or another have been thoroughly disillusioned on this score. In spite of the high ideals to which the scientific world subscribes in theory, today?s best guess is just as firmly enthroned in the field of science as it is in economics or any other of the less ?exact? branches of knowledge, and the extent to which general acceptance is taken as the equivalent of proof in present-day scientific practice is nothing short of astounding. It is true that the areas in which the facts have been positively and unequivocally established are much larger in science than in these other fields, but outside of these fully explored areas the scientist is just as reluctant to admit ignorance as his counterparts in other disciplines, and just as prone to present his opinion or that of the ?authorities? in his field as positive knowledge. There is, in fact, a very general tendency to elevate currently popular scientific theories and assumptions to the status of incontestable articles of faith whose validity must not be questioned, and the path of the innovator who dares to take issue with these cherished doctrines is thorny indeed.

The most serious aspect of this policy is that it tends to perpetuate basic errors when they are once made. Inevitably the theorists will take a wrong turn sooner or later, and present practice sets up an almost impassible roadblock in the way of getting back on the right track. This situation is greatly aggravated by what some observers have called the ?epicyclical? character of much of present-day physical theory. When a theory encounters difficulties of a serious nature, it is no longer fashionable to abandon it, as would have been done in an earlier era. The present practice is to ?save? the theory by adding the equivalent of one of the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy. Then when further trouble develops another epicycle is added, and so on. Each addition not only buries the errors of the original theory that much deeper and makes them that much harder to deal with, but also puts the originator of a new and better theory in a position where he cannot isolate the primary issue and meet it squarely; he must contend with all of the epicycles at the same time, however irrelevant they may actually be.

One of the most ?epicyclical? of all physical theories is the nuclear theory of the atom. I am continually coming into conflict with this theory in my work, and while it has not been difficult to demonstrate the shortcomings of this theory in the particular applications with which I have been concerned, the theory and its coterie of epicycles are so firmly embedded in so much of present-day scientific thought that even the most glaring deficiencies make little impression on the general standing of the theory as long as they are exposed one by one in their separate areas. The usual reaction to a demonstration of the failure of the theory in any specific application is quite reminiscent of the attitude of the author of the economics textbook. ?Perhaps I will have to admit that the theory gives the wrong answers in the particular case under consideration,? the physicist says, ?but it must be correct as a general proposition anyway, because everyone who knows anything about science accepts it.? In view of this prevailing attitude which makes it impossible to deal with the situation on an item by item basis, it has seemed necessary to undertake a critical appraisal of the structure as a whole, to show how utterly untenable the cntire theory becomes when it is examined in the light of the immense amount of experimental knowledge now at our command. As the facts brought out in this work demonstrate, there never was any adequate experimental basis for the theory in the first place--the originators simply jumped to conclusions without considering the possible alternative explanations of the results of their experiments--and the advance of knowledge in the intervening half-century has completely destroyed the support which the theory originally derived from the scientific ideas and beliefs prevailing at the time it was originated. The conclusions of this work will no doubt be extremely distasteful to those who have been so confident of the validity of their atomic theory for so many years, but the facts are clear and unmistakable once anyone takes a good look at them. This situation must be faced eventually, and the longer the reckoning is postponed the greater the cost. However painful the necessary readjustment of thinking may be, the sooner it is accomplished the sooner it will be possible to get some tangible benefits out of the tremendous amount of time, money and effort that are now being wasted in futile attempts to find answers to meaningless problems and to establish the nature and properties of non-existent particles and forces."

For more read here.

The gist of my initial post, Q.E.D., was that not only is the Copenhagen interpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle incorrect when viewed through the paradigm of Newtonian physics but that philosophical idealism which uses that model to bolster its standing is completely incorrect.

Check out the link. I think you and others interested in physics should find it interesting.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1740614 - 07/23/03 09:13 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

I believe that logic and intuition (read: creativity) both play their respective roles. Organized Chaos I like to call it. While God may not play dice.. he certainly does own a set..

The Universe does indeed follow a 'divine plan', which to some could be labeled as 'logical'. Endless Creation through the most outstanding and sometimes obscure methods as possible. Part of this order, however, is chaos and destruction. Things can and cannot be at the same time.. depending on your perspective.

So I agree, and I disagree.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 15 years, 22 days
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1740644 - 07/23/03 09:29 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

does the independent reality MM is talking about = absolutism (in morality) vs. the "idealistic" stance of relativism?

we spend alot of time arguing about relative.absolute morality last semester, so I tend to look for them in everything.... ?


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1741275 - 07/23/03 01:23 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

M_M: The principle should be understood as attributing uncertainty only to our measurements in quantum mechanics.
...
That uncertainty, which is epistemic, or in our field of knowing, is fallaciously converted into an indeterminacy in the structure of reality, which then becomes ontological, not epistemic.


This is true... we can't know FOR SURE if this uncertainty is an objective truth about reality or merely a flaw in our ability to take measurements.  However, should we necessarily assume the opposite (determinism) merely because we can't verify our measurements absolutely?  I think not, bro.

Moving along, one of the primary reasons I support the notion of free will and indeterminacy (as you're calling it here) is because of it's practical implications.  And I'm not talking about the libertarian objections.  I'm talking about my FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE.  Hell, even Descartes knew it was unreasonable to assume (you DON'T have proof, right?) that an evil demon of some sort was tricking him into believing that he was actually thinking [on his own].

Agree or dissagree?

I disagree... obviously.

trendel: M-Theory, Superstrings, GUTs, and Unified Fields. They're all examples of the underlying symmetries found by physics working backwards.
DoctorJ: they are all crappy, incomplete theories that will eventually be wiped off the blackboard and replaced with some new trendy incomplete theory.

I, too, think a little research into the history of scientific progress reveals such a pattern.  Then again... maybe atoms really are like raisin pudding. :wink:

grandmasterfat: I think humans are very arrogant in the fact that they think they can grasp the ultimate truth through their imperfect minds.

Exactly.  Egocentrism.


M_M, I'm not really sure what I think about that article.  It's pretty much intelligent rhetoric.  On an interesting note, the author's condemnation of "them" is in a completely abstract manner, thus a refutation isn't really possible.  The author seems to be against dogmatic thinking and whatnot (which is good), but without actual examples, I can't say I agree or disagree with him. 


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 4 months, 11 days
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1741310 - 07/23/03 01:34 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

For more read here.




Great link! The author seems a bit pedantic from what I've read so far, but he raises a lot of interesting questions.

My previous post didn't address your actual point. But I think I agree with it.

From an ontological point of view, quantum mechanics has been a catastrophe so far. From a pragmatic point of view however, it has been the most successful theory in history when it comes to precision in numerical predictions.

I think all of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics were aware of the ontological problems, but they struggled ahead anyway. When they said "there is no way you could even in principle predict when an individual radium atom decays", they meant that such predictions were not possible within the theory, as opposed to classically impossible predictions that are deterministic in principle (like for example the 3-body problem in the newtonian theory of gravitation).

Unfortunately, this has been misinterpreted to mean that the quantum randomness also has some kind of ontological significance.

Some physicists clearly subscribe to some sort of philosophical idealism, but they must also believe that there is some kind of objective reality that we can measure, otherwise they would quit being physicists and start working as New Age evangelists instead...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Sclorch]
    #1741326 - 07/23/03 01:37 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

And by the way...
The point(s) I was making have been missed by many, primarily because of their familiarity with science instead of philosophy.
...are pre-emptive down-players, though subtle, like this one really necessary?
There really shouldn't be a need to disqualify any opposition beforehand. :wink: 


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1742061 - 07/23/03 05:50 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

It's nice to know we agree.

We never really had a chance to communicate in this forum so I thought after your rate I would take a little time and post something of interest to you.

Of all your statements this I find this one to be central to the issue:

Unfortunately, this has been misinterpreted to mean that the quantum randomness also has some kind of ontological significance.

Those who truly understand the foundations of philosophical realism, and I think I am in that camp, would heartily agree with that statement. I find it to be a good starting place for many avenues of thought.

I am glad we did this and happy you enjoyed the link. Dr. Larson is a favorite of mine whenever people start to lean too heavily on one interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Take care,

MM

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Sclorch]
    #1742100 - 07/23/03 06:02 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Sclorch said:
And by the way...
The point(s) I was making have been missed by many, primarily because of their familiarity with science instead of philosophy.
...are pre-emptive down-players, though subtle, like this one really necessary?
There really shouldn't be a need to disqualify any opposition beforehand. :wink:   




Oh no Sclorch, don't misunderstand me.  I wasn't necessarily disqualifying or down-playing anyone.  I was merely making an observation that most of us are trained in empirical science from grade school on.  Very few of us are familiar with logic or philosophy until we take it up in college.

And I don't have any qualms with indeterminacy per se.  I just don't use to to shore up idiotic philosophical notions like idealism.  Neither do my claims assign certitude to any of their values other than the most basic tenets of logic.

The physicists and dreamers (is there any difference?) can adhere to silly notions all they like.  I'll take pragmatic realism over them anyday. 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1742305 - 07/23/03 06:53 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Well then... I'm glad I was only misunderstanding you.

I just don't use to to shore up idiotic philosophical notions like idealism.
Did you mean to say "...don't use IT to shore..."?  :confused:


The physicists and dreamers (is there any difference?) can adhere to silly notions all they like. I'll take pragmatic realism over them anyday.

Well, I'm not certain that "pragmatic realism" isn't a tad redundant... but yeah, idealism is for the egocentric, IMHO. hehehe


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: Sclorch]
    #1742862 - 07/23/03 09:10 PM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Yes, that was a typo. It should have been 'it'.

Pragmatic realism is actually an offshoot of Jamesian philosophy. And while I don't agree with everything James says I do adhere to a good bit of it. Pragmatism has its roots in realism to some extent but the inverse isn't quite as true.

Sorry to screw up your title but I deleted my rate. (wink)

Now pardon me while I go back the Hunting forum.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: An example of using the principles of logic. [Re: ]
    #1743460 - 07/24/03 12:32 AM (20 years, 10 months ago)

Later.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Use of Logic
( 1 2 all )
Veritas 3,008 33 06/12/06 08:02 PM
by fireworks_god
* Logic, Emotion, Mathematics, and the Universe
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 5,480 47 02/23/04 07:29 AM
by raytrace
* why are there so many loopholes, blanks, and contradictions in logic?
( 1 2 3 all )
MrBuzin 5,251 40 02/20/07 01:49 PM
by shroomydan
* Logic
( 1 2 all )
shroomydan 3,176 34 06/16/06 05:30 AM
by slaphappy
* Logic as a coping strategy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Asante 11,680 100 06/18/08 11:18 PM
by Rose
* Logic
( 1 2 all )
trendalM 1,543 23 05/08/03 03:15 PM
by NapkinOfDoom
* pitfalls of logic *DELETED* Sophistic Radiance 1,661 19 12/05/07 02:06 PM
by Icelander
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 6,644 45 10/15/05 11:19 AM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,630 topic views. 0 members, 7 guests and 37 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.