Einstein and Bohr Redefine Reality

Cypress

"Cypress you motherfucking whore!"
Einstein and Bohr Redefine Reality

Special and general relativity describe a wholly new world, yet they were assimilated by the scientific community as if they were extensions of 19th-century physics.
1. Relativity theory is not merely an improvement of Newtonian physics; it redefines the most fundamental terms of that physics and in the process it redefines reality.
2. Scientists behave as if theory change were a continuous process instead of discontinuously changing what we consider real.
3. The commonsense notion that the real is the changeless source and cause of experience is belied by the continual redefinition of “reality” as scientific knowledge evolves.

Heisenberg’s acausal matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s causal-deterministic wave mechanics proved to be intertranslatable.
1. Here we have another echo of Fourier: theories whose equations match empirical experience but whose terms have no obvious correlation with “reality.”
2. Einstein and Bohr engaged in an epic, decades long argument over the explanatory adequacy of quantum theory.
3. What was at issue seems to have been different conceptions of the criteria of the intelligibility of experience.
4. The dispute illustrates the persistence of the hunger for
certainty and Truth within science against pragmatic.


Source credit: Steven Goldberg, philosopher of science
 
It boils down to the question of whether science is only in the business of providing descriptions of relations among phenomena, or whether it is providing certain, neccessary, and universal knowledge of reality; the external causes of experience
 
Einstein and Bohr Redefine Reality
This is all meaningless gibberish. Was there some point that you wanted to discuss?

3. What was at issue seems to have been different conceptions of the criteria of the intelligibility of experience.
This should have been your clue that this article was written as a joke. "Intelligibility" is a quality of communication, not of tacit knowledge, e.g. experience. This is an intentional play on the readers' ignorance on the topic.

4. The dispute illustrates the persistence of the hunger for certainty and Truth within science against pragmatic.
This should have been your clue that the author is scientifically illiterate and thus is simply playing to his layman readers' ignorance. Nothing is ever TRUE or CONFIRMED in science.

Why did you post this?
 
It boils down to the question of whether science is only in the business of providing descriptions of relations among phenomena, or whether it is providing certain, neccessary, and universal knowledge of reality; the external causes of experience
Science is nothing more than a set of models. Science is not a business and nobody owns it.
 
I don't read or discuss with the mentally ill.

I tend to be of the mind that scientific theories generally only constitute summaries of the relationships of experiences, or among phenomena. They are capable of prediction, but they don't provide a picture of any external reality out there independent of the human mind.

Newton's law of gravitation made good predictions but it told us nothing about what gravity really is or it's external causes.
 
I don't read or discuss with the mentally ill.
You don't discuss with anyone who knows what he's talking about because it would otherwise only be a matter of time before you look stupid for not knowing what you are talking about.

I tend to be of the mind
Does this mean that often you are not?

Could you elaborate on those times that you are not?

that scientific theories generally only constitute summaries of the relationships of experiences, or among phenomena.
We have reached the point in this discussion where you look stupid. Now that didn't take long, did it?

They are capable of prediction, but they don't provide a picture of any external reality out there independent of the human mind.
Too funny. They don't soften hands while you do the dishes either.

Science models predict nature. That's their job. They aren't supposed to be painting pictures of anything outside the scope of the model itself.

Newton's law of gravitation made good predictions but it told us nothing about what gravity really is or it's external causes.
Are you under the mistaken impression that Einstein's model somehow does?
 
You don't discuss with anyone who knows what he's talking about because it would otherwise only be a matter of time before you look stupid for not knowing what you are talking about.


Does this mean that often you are not?

Could you elaborate on those times that you are not?


We have reached the point in this discussion where you look stupid. Now that didn't take long, did it?


Too funny. They don't soften hands while you do the dishes either.

Science models predict nature. That's their job. They aren't supposed to be painting pictures of anything outside the scope of the model itself.


Are you under the mistaken impression that Einstein's model somehow does?

Familiarize yourself with the three thousand years debate in Western intellectual history on this topic. Then come back with a cogent and meaningful response.

And take your meds
 
Familiarize yourself with the three thousand years debate in Western intellectual history on this topic. Then come back with a cogent and meaningful response.

And take your meds
You really COULD enroll in some courses. You are NOT somehow required to remain an uneducated dolt forever.

It really is NOT the end of the world if you can no longer fool people into believing that you are somehow a thmart perthon. You can always try fooling the sheep at a local farm.
 
You really COULD enroll in some courses. You are NOT somehow required to remain an uneducated dolt forever.

It really is NOT the end of the world if you can no longer fool people into believing that you are somehow a thmart perthon. You can always try fooling the sheep at a local farm.

^ meaningless drivel.
 
The open question is whether the claims of scientism are true.

"Scientism: The belief that science is the only way of knowing what's true or real"


That's been an open debate for the better part of 400 years.
 
The open question is whether the claims of scientism are true.

"Scientism: The belief that science is the only way of knowing what's true or real"

This is a necessarily stupid question. Follow the logic:

1. Nothing in science is true or confirmed.
2. Science cannot therefore be the only way to somehow"know" what is true or confirmed.
3. It does not take 400 years to discuss points 1 and 2.

That's been an open debate for the better part of 400 years.
Nope. Philosophy (using logic), which is what you are describing, has been around much longer than that.
 
Heisenberg’s acausal matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s causal-deterministic wave mechanics proved to be intertranslatable.

Would anyone on here be able to translate this sentence? Anyone? No, I didn't think so. I'm at a loss myself.

1. Here we have another echo of Fourier: theories whose equations match empirical experience but whose terms have no obvious correlation with “reality.”

What, specific, part of Fourier? I'm genuinely curious.

2. Einstein and Bohr engaged in an epic, decades long argument over the explanatory adequacy of quantum theory.

Einstein was sadly mistaken. It happens to the best of the best. Many famous greats in the sciences were caught off guard by advances they didn't necessarily like or understand.

3. What was at issue seems to have been different conceptions of the criteria of the intelligibility of experience.

I'm guessing by this bloated phrase they are talking about the concept of the role of the Observer. That seems to have been the primary sticking point everyone had with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

4. The dispute illustrates the persistence of the hunger for
certainty and Truth within science against pragmatic.

Yes and no. Any real scientist knows that all we EVER get are hints and "best estimates" of truth. That's why scientists don't deal in "proofs" but rather "evidence".

As for "certainty" science has slowly been drug kicking and screaming into a stochastic world. Whether it's the bland day-to-day stochastic concepts like the temperature of a gas being a function of velocity of the gas molecules knowing that no individual molecule can be perfectly characterized but the ensemble can be understood all the way to the truly freaky aspects about wave-particle duality and the fact that an orbital in an atom is little more than a "probability space" for finding that electron.

...but all that is science so we won't discuss it on here. Let's just hack it out with IBDaMan because he doesn't threaten to actually talk about REAL science.
 
The open question is whether the claims of scientism are true.

"Scientism: The belief that science is the only way of knowing what's true or real"


That's been an open debate for the better part of 400 years.

Since it's an open debate it's probably best to just tell everyone that no one should discuss it and they should just let you list authorities in long unending copy-pastes. Then Doc can approve your posts and it's all cool.
 
Science is the best information we have of the physical world at any given moment



That is its main value to mankind
 
Science is the best information we have of the physical world at any given moment



That is its main value to mankind

In principle, I tend to agree.

The interesting question that's been on the table for a couple centuries is if science is giving us a true picture of nature and reality, or whether it's just describing our phenomenological experiences with nature.

The preeminent German physicist Ernst Macht wrote that space, time, motion, mass, force, and energy were all names of relationships. Physics describes relationships. It does not reveal ultimate realities.
 
Heisenberg’s acausal matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s causal-deterministic wave mechanics proved to be intertranslatable.

Would anyone on here be able to translate this sentence? Anyone? No, I didn't think so. I'm at a loss myself.

The story I've read is that Heisenberg and Schrodinger independently came up with different mathmatical treatments of the quantum wave function, and both had perfectly adequate predictive power.

But they both can't be true and certain depictions of reality. They both can't be right.

That is an example of this long standing debate in philosopy of science. Do scientific theories represent reality as it really is? Or does they only represent relationships of our experiences with nature
 
Since it's an open debate it's probably best to just tell everyone that no one should discuss it and they should just let you list authorities in long unending copy-pastes. Then Doc can approve your posts and it's all cool.

So if your goal on this thread is to insult me and indulge your petty grievances, why would I take my time to read your posts and engage you?
 
About all that happens on his threads.

Cut and paste and citations to experts happens about ten thousand times a day on this board.

Your threads almost always include a copy and paste from some article.

I am interested is discussing the ideas of the greatest minds in science and philosopy. I don't care what your or Perry PhD's ideas on quantum mechanics are. You all don't have any original ideas about it. None. Nada. Zip. What we have are the various ideas of subject matter experts we can discuss and evaluate.
 
Back
Top