[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6


Post 120

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 12:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 121

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 5:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In Post 19, Ed wrote,

Ed, I understand that brevity is the soul of wit, but don't you think you're pushing it a bit?

- Bill

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 122

Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
possibly

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 123

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ugh, here we go again but I had to respond to a couple of things...

Bill wrote:

But he was very definitely biased, which is something that even he admitted in one of his posts. If a man concedes his own anti-Objectivist bias - if he states it explicitly - and then argues like it for all the world, then I think it's rational for me to conclude that he is biased.

This is what I wrote about my bias:

"Yes, I have a bias because reading Rand, I find I simply cannot accept many things  - another thread sometime maybe.  I admire the reason, logic, and many other elements, but strongly disagree with many of Rand's conclusions (and even premises)."

This is not a bias in the sense of not being rational as you have implied.  It is based on my own, reasoned conclusions.

I am "biased" in a sense against Objectivists for the folowing reasons:

 - I have concluded that a great deal of Objectivism is questionable at best, and often wrong/contradictory.

 - I admire the central position of reason and logic in Objectivism. But what happens when the very same logic pokes huge holes in central tenets of the philosophy?  The logic and reason so highly exalted, is quickly abandoned as illustrated very well in this thread.

- I think that the only force of argument left is the force of the "intellectual investment" that I think people like Bill have, and they compelled as a result to put their head in the sand and deny reality.  This is the only reason I can think of that would explain how someone who I perceive to be intelligent like Bill would wallow in such futility.  How else could such a clear case of begging the question be denied?

 - Other reasons too, not enough time now...

Cal has done a great job in trouncing Bill's weak arguments.  Often I get an emotional reaction to all of this when I suspect someone is being dishonest or deliberately evasive, but Cal doesn't do this.  His arguments are more eloquent and his posts more level-headed than mine I admit, and he's absolutely right.

Cal wrote:

"If you look at Joseph's argument: If a thing is to have any determinate nature and character at all, there must be uniformity of action in different things of that character, or of the same thing on different like occasions. His supposition is that a thing has a determinate nature, and then he tells us that it under the same circumstances can only produce the same effect. Well, that is of course a classic example of begging the question: you suppose that its nature is deterministic and that supposedly "proves" that it does behave deterministically. And the argument of the Law of Identity is of course also fallacious: A thing, to be at all, must be something, and can only be what it is. This does not imply that it must behave deterministically, however, that is an extra assumption that is not contained in the definition of the Law of Identity. This is a big flaw in the Objectivist reasoning and no argument from authority or argument ad hominem can change that".

Fundamentally, this is what I have also concluded (and less eloquently argued) to be the truth, and have seen no plausible argument yet that refutes or even causes me to question these conclusions. 

Bob


Post 124

Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 6:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Richard Healey has an online review of Tim Maudlin’s new book The Metaphysics within Physics (OUP 2007).

 

Prof. Healey is the author of these:

 

Gauging What's Real: The Conceptual Foundations of Gauge Theories

 

The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation



Post 125

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Advances in non-demolition quantum measurement of photons:

 

Science News

 

Prof. Haroche

 


Post 126

Sunday, February 7, 2010 - 2:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Following on #54, concerning the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics:

Why Everettians Should Appreciate the Transactional Interpretation
Ruth E. Kastner (Phil. of Sci. 2010)


Post 127

Sunday, February 7, 2010 - 2:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Duplicate
(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 2/07, 2:13am)


Post 128

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Nevertheless, Stengler's response is that "accidents happen," as demonstrated by quantum mechanics. "Everything that occurs in the universe," he writes, "is not precisely predetermined by natural law. In fact, our so-called 'laws' apply only on average to ensembles of physical systems, not to individual ones. The behavior of individual systems is left to the vagaries of chance." (p. 226)

         
          The problem (to me) seems to be the mistaken belief that there are “individual systems” in the metaphysical (inclusive of all that is physical, known and unknown) sense. There are no “individual systems” in existence; there is only all of existence. “Individual systems” and “ensembles of physical systems” are epistemological/mental objects. Try creating a vacuum and existence will boil up into it. The universe and its objects conserve their angular momentum (ect) together, the objects by themselves only do so moment to moment.  If the universe needs one portion of itself to take on some amount of angular momentum in order for the whole to be conserved--then that portion will.  . In fact, our so-called 'laws' apply only to the universe as a whole, and on average to ensembles of physical systems, and individual ones.


Post 129

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 - 2:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

A supplement to Glenn’s #56, an introduction to the pilot-wave theory:

Bohmian Trajectories as the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics
Goldstein, Tumulka, and Zanghi (2009)



(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 4/06, 2:48am)


Post 130

Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 3:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This was spam.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 4/08, 7:06am)


Post 131

Thursday, April 8, 2010 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gawd, I so wasn't sure! Oh well.

Post 132

Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 4:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In the 1980’s physicists succeeded in transforming the old EPR thought experiment and the related delayed-choice thought experiment into actual laboratory experiments. This past spring, physicists succeeded in constructing the first actual experiment bearing on the old Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment. See the links here.

In the reports and interviews surrounding this recent success in creating a macroscopic quantum oscillator, one will find considerable abuse of the word contradiction. I remember having a little conversation after class—my first in atomic physics—with our professor. At some point in the exchange, I replied along the line of “I have figured out one thing. Something cannot be both a particle and a wave because that is a contradiction.” I never forgot her response: “It’s not a contradiction if we can explain it.” That was something worth remembering.

Even without learning more about quantum mechanics and how its concepts and mathematical representations are related to those of classical mechanics, the reader is probably aware that particle-like activities of a system are never exhibited at the same time as wave-like activities and that this is enough for self-consistency in the conceived entities.

Unfortunately, loose talk of quantum systems being in contradictory states when all one means is that they are in a superposition of states has been so widespread for so long that the word contradiction is being given a new meaning (providing the opportunity for gee-whiz aura by equivocation). It reminds me of how the meaning of “begs the question” has come to be so widely used for “invites the question” (suggesting ignorance of the fallacy of begging the question). Sometimes ignorant usages really destroy the original meaning, and we lose what was formerly a neat word for a cool concept. Examples would be use of comprise for compose and use of coincidence for accidental coincidence. I said “we lose.” Actually, I continue exclusively with the old usages (and pound the table).

Back to the good news. The realization of the macroscopic quantum oscillator will contribute to further understanding of the ways in which the quantum regime relates to the classical regime, and it may lead to technological advances.


Post 133

Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 4:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen:

Is your objection that the word contradiction is used in the sense of 'actual contradiction' as opposed to 'apparent contradiction?' Why do some do that? My guess is, a wish by some to paint presently unexplained perceptions of reality into magical/mystical gaps in reality.

regards,
Fred

Post 134

Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen,
I agree with your professor when she said “It’s not a contradiction if we can explain it.”  However, here's a quote from one of the articles you linked to:

“Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.”

Isn't this a quintessential example of a contradiction: the paddle is both A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect?  I don't think you can explain this just by saying that it's in a superposition of the two states; that's just saying the same thing.  A superposition is just a linear combination of being in A and not-A.

I'll have to look into the work to see how they were able to show by "careful measurements" that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating.  Until then, let's just say I'm skeptical.

Thanks,

Glenn



Post 135

Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 9:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred, yes. As to why some do that, I think another reason is that when the scientists try to speak to laity, through reporters, they know they can’t use any of their technical terms and expect to be understood. So they revert to lingo they know has become common in popular talk of their topic. There, people use contradiction for what is really an apparent contradiction a lot. A better way to go is probably to stop using contradiction in physicist-to-laity settings and use counterintuitive instead.

Glenn, I noticed that one too. That is surely some sort of mess in communication, and I too would like to see to the bottom of it. I would like, for one thing, to look at the relation of the phonon (which as I recall are bosons) with the paddle (which is in some collective state of fermions if I am not mistaken) in the experimental setup and its analysis. Or is the constitution of the paddle irrelevant, perhaps, and only its vibration modes relevant, I wonder. If so, I wonder if talking so simply about “the paddle” isn’t misleading (and not very far into what has been so provocative in the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment?), however much the speaker intends no confusion.


Post 136

Friday, August 12, 2011 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


An Informational Derivation of Quantum Theory
Chiribella, D’Ariano, and Perinotti (July 2011)


Post 137

Thursday, June 11 - 9:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Theoretical and experimental advances are lately allowing more test of and refinement of Bohr’s thesis of wave-particle duality. That is the proposition that any experimental setup exhibiting interference of the de Broglie wave associated with momentum of any matter or field will, if altered to exhibit a particle form of that momentum, remove exhibition of the associated wave, such as interference patterns. So far, this division of the particle aspect and the wave aspect of the elementary entities, such as neutrons, electrons, phonons, or electrons, we manipulate today has held fast.

 

“Fair Sampling Perspective on an Apparent Violation of Duality”

E. Bolduc et al., 2012

Abstract

In the event in which a quantum mechanical particle can pass from an initial state to a final state along two possible paths, the duality principle states that “the simultaneous observation of wave and particle behavior is prohibited” [Scully MO, Englert B-G, Walther H (1991) Nature 351:111–116]. Whereas wave behavior is associated with the observation of interference fringes, particle behavior generally corresponds to the acquisition of which-path information by means of coupling the paths to a measuring device or part of their environment. In this paper, we show how the consequences of duality change when allowing for biased sampling, that is, postselected measurements on specific degrees of freedom of the environment of the two-path state. Our work gives insight into a possible mechanism for obtaining simultaneous high which-path information and high-visibility fringes in a single experiment. Further, our results introduce previously unidentified avenues for experimental tests of duality.

 

“Experimental Observation of Simultaneous Wave and Particle Behavior in a Narrowband Single-Photon Wave Packet”

H. Yan et al., 2015

The Science News issue of May 30th describes what goes on in this experiment: “captures a single parcel of light morphing between wave and particle.”



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 138

Monday, June 15 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Reading this reminds me of the scene in Poul Anderson's Brain Wave, where the farm hand who now has an IQ of 150 says to the scientist who now has an IQ twice that, "So, this is what it was always like for you?")



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]