GENIUS FORUMS

Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?

Bell should have studied his epistemology better. No theory is ever forced upon us by evidence. Accepting a specific predictive model of observed evidence is always a deliberate theoretic choice.

The alternative against which Bell seems to argue, the Copenhagen model, does entail subjectivity, but it's a sort of subjectivity very similar to that found in relativism, where observation is a function of the relationship between the observer and the observed; so objecting to subjectivity is itself a deliberate theoretic choice -- a choice, apparently made in ignorance, of epistemic realism over relativism, pragmatism or positivism.

So the only real objection is to the randomness issue. The choice is between QM with randomness or QM with unknowlables, with noumena if you will. However, there is absolutely no sound scientific reason to reject randomness (only personal prejudice, as in Einstein's case), and plenty of sound scientific reasons to reject unknowables, precisely because science is in the business of knowing, and such a methodological stance undermines the methodological coherence of scientific enterprise.

I personally think this conflict misses the point, because I reject the utility of interpretations altogether. As Feynman supposedly said, 'Shut up and calculate!' -- i think that the math of QM is its content, everything else is our inventions to salve our misguided intuitions, intuitions whcih developed in a world where we hunt big animals with pointy sticks.

Screw that. I am an instrumentalist.

Jason wrote:

vicdan wrote:There is no such thing as 'actually know'. All knowledge is provisional and contextual. All knowledge is subject to revision.

Do you actually know the above? Is the above provisional and subject to revision?

No. Sure, revise away. :)

DHodges wrote:Wrote all this before seeing Victor's explanation, which is more complete.

Thanks anyways, Dave.

BTW... Jason, "Do you actually know the above? Is the above provisional and subject to revision?"

Hahahaahaaa.... there we go again...!

vicdan wrote:So the only real objection is to the randomness issue. The choice is between QM with randomness or QM with unknowlables, with noumena if you will. However, there is absolutely no sound scientific reason to reject randomness (only personal prejudice, as in Einstein's case), and plenty of sound scientific reasons to reject unknowables, precisely because science is in the business of knowing, and such a methodological stance undermines the methodological coherence of scientific enterprise.

As Bohm himself said that the unknowables are currently unknown, but there is no reason that they will be forever unknown. But to adopt a rigid dogma of inherent randomness will nip any efforts to detect them in the bud.

An explanation that just escapes into randomness and the limitation of human mind seems much more problematic.

vicdan wrote:Screw that. I am an instrumentalist.

What do you play? Wait....I reckon it's the accordion.

I reckon you are right, assuming you mean the world accordion to Victor.

maestro wrote:As Bohm himself said that the unknowables are currently unknown, but there is no reason that they will be forever unknown. But to adopt a rigid dogma of inherent randomness will nip any efforts to detect them in the bud.

No, it doesn't. The inquiry into the workings of the world never stops. if we ever attain the ability to peek below Planck scale (which IIRC is where Bohmian hidden variables reside), we will find them. However, as far as we currently know, it's impossible to peek below the Planck scale.

In this regard, Bohm's interpretation 'leaves open the path to future investigations' -- in a way comparable to how 'guided evolution' creationism, RCC-style, 'leaves open' the path to finding god in the future. Simply saying "yeah, sure, there can perhaps be future inquiry over here in this impenetrable-to-inquiry area' is simply a sophomoric philosophical dodge.

Bohm himself called his interpretation ontological -- as opposed to epistemic interpretations like Copenhagen. He simply didn't follow that Ariadne thread to its logical conclusion about what it means to posit a scientific theory with a non-epistemic, ontological component.

Bite the bullet and admit that you are positing noumena.

An explanation that just escapes into randomness and the limitation of human mind seems much more problematic.

it's an explanation that best matches everything we know about QM. The desire for hidden variables is born of philosophical prejudice, just like Einstein's rejection of randomness was.

vicdan wrote: If you throw a quantum die, its outcome will not be determined by the prior state of the world as best as we can determine. Randomness is when the outcomes of an event comprise a distribution such that specific outcomes aren't determined by the prior state of the system.

Mentioning quantum dice only make it worse: there's no statistical independence between measurements on different particles even without know interactions. This says nothing about lack of determination, the opposite would be more likely but this is all part of rather irrelevant theory.

Your earlier statement: "a strand of RNA, and that could appear by random chance" would equal saying RNA could appear in an unpredictable fashion. Which is meaningless in the context of your remark. Same goes to claim "there's indeed such a thing as random chance". That's just saying to Dan that we can and possibly never will be able to predict everything.

And I'll say it again: the article you linked to actually suggests a fully determined formation of RNA and the other article I mentioned explains how RNA could have earlier 'selectors'. Both turning your remarks totally unfounded and unnecessary for the most part. The term 'shadow boxer' applies.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

vicdan wrote: If you throw a quantum die, its outcome will not be determined by the prior state of the world as best as we can determine. Randomness is when the outcomes of an event comprise a distribution such that specific outcomes aren't determined by the prior state of the system.

Mentioning quantum dice only make it worse: there's no statistical independence between measurements on different particles even without know interactions.

Oh? if you are saying what i think you are saying, I just gotta see some evidence on this one. Entanglement is one thing, but you seem to be claiming that even non-entangled particles exhibit dependent distribution of outcome measurements.

This says nothing about lack of determination, the opposite would be more likely but this is all part of rather irrelevant theory.

Your earlier statement: "a strand of RNA, and that could appear by random chance" would equal saying RNA could appear in an unpredictable fashion. Which is meaningless in the context of your remark. Same goes to claim "there's indeed such a thing as random chance". That's just saying to Dan that we can and possibly never will be able to predict everything.

That's only meaningless if you foolishly obsess over ontology, and assume that we can speak about how things are apart from how they are perceived. This is exactly the noumenal delusion I mentioned before -- the thing which bites QRS in the ass time and time again.

vicdan wrote:

Bell: Why is the pilot wave picture ignored in text books? Should it not be taught, not as the only way, but as an antidote to the prevailing complacency? To show us that vagueness, subjectivity, and indeterminism, are not forced on us by experimental facts, but by deliberate theoretical choice?

Bell should have studied his epistemology better. No theory is ever forced upon us by evidence. Accepting a specific predictive model of observed evidence is always a deliberate theoretic choice.

I believe that was Bell's point.

I personally think this conflict misses the point, because I reject the utility of interpretations altogether. As Feynman supposedly said, 'Shut up and calculate!' -- i think that the math of QM is its content, everything else is our inventions to salve our misguided intuitions, intuitions whcih developed in a world where we hunt big animals with pointy sticks.

Then why did you write further down:

Diebert: An explanation that just escapes into randomness and the limitation of human mind seems much more problematic.

Victor: it's an explanation that best matches everything we know about QM.

This is what makes your writings on these issues confusing. There is a noticeable lack of consistency.

I don't believe you have really resolved these issues in your own mind.

So the only real objection is to the randomness issue. The choice is between QM with randomness or QM with unknowlables, with noumena if you will.

No, it all boils down to a choice between believing that quantum events "just happen" and their being caused to happen by processes currently unknown to us. No reference to the noumena is needed.

The first is pure religion, the second is a standard scientific premise.

It's always comical to observe the defenders of the conventional interpretation of quantum theory, which is pure religion, trying to depict the rational objections of others as being religious in nature.

The desire for hidden variables is born of philosophical prejudice, just like Einstein's rejection of randomness was.

It is a basic premise of scientific investigation.

The belief that things "just happen" is the most unscientific premise imaginable. Science would never have got off the ground in the first place if such a belief had predominated.

There is no such thing as 'actually know'. All knowledge is provisional and contextual. All knowledge is subject to revision.

You don't actually know that you are perceiving these words in this very moment?

Come on, Victor, be real. There is more to knowledge than reciting scripts.

That's only meaningless if you foolishly obsess over ontology, and assume that we can speak about how things are apart from how they are perceived. This is exactly the noumenal delusion I mentioned before -- the thing which bites QRS in the ass time and time again.

As I've mentioned previously, I don't believe in any kind of noumena, nor do I believe in the idea that the things we experience can be separated from our perception of them.

Your understanding of "QRS" is laughable.

A word of advice: Not everyone who finds your world-view to be narrow is a New Age clone. There are other forms of opposition out there. You need to get over your obsession with the New Age and try exploring them for a change.

-

Vic needs to exactly define what he means by the word 'noumena'.

David Quinn wrote:I believe that was Bell's point.

That's not how I read Bell's statement.

Then why did you write further down:

Diebert: An explanation that just escapes into randomness and the limitation of human mind seems much more problematic.

Victor: it's an explanation that best matches everything we know about QM.

Because randomness is a part of the standard QM formalization.

No, it all boils down to a choice between believing that quantum events "just happen" and their being caused to happen by processes currently unknown to us. No reference to the noumena is needed.

Did you read anything i wrote? it's not just 'currently unknown to us' that is at stake.

The first is pure religion, the second is a standard scientific premise.

ha. ha. ha. if you knew anything about science, this proclamation might even mean something.

The belief that things "just happen" is the most unscientific premise imaginable.

Good thing Qm doesn't posit that, eh?

You don't actually know that you are perceiving these words in this very moment?

Come on, Victor, be real. There is more to knowledge than reciting scripts.

Indeed. i wish you'd realize that someday.

As I've mentioned previously, I don't believe in any kind of noumena[/quote[And yet you refer to them time and time again.

A word of advice: Not everyone who finds your world-view to be narrow is a New Age clone. There are other forms of opposition out there. You need to get over your obsession with the New Age and try exploring them for a change.

Dude, I know that you kids aren't NewAge. i don't think I accused QRS of NewAgeism. You are nuts of a wholly different flavor, and I am not sure why you bring up my disdain for NewAge here.

Ataraxia wrote:Vic needs to exactly define what he means by the word 'noumena'.

Ask Kant. Oh wait, you kant...

vicdan wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:Vic needs to exactly define what he means by the word 'noumena'.

Ask Kant. Oh wait, you kant...

Well it is not even clear what Kant meant by the word.Do you mean objective "thing-in-itself"?

If so how could a materialist/physicalist not believe in that;what are you using your instruments on?

Why don't you try to figure that out?

Hint: The answer lies in the meaning of instrumentalism.

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I believe that was Bell's point.

That's not how I read Bell's statement.

Then you misread it.

Then why did you write further down:

Diebert: An explanation that just escapes into randomness and the limitation of human mind seems much more problematic.

Victor: it's an explanation that best matches everything we know about QM.

Because randomness is a part of the standard QM formalization.

Randomness, in the weak, technical sense, is part of any predictive theory.

vicdan wrote:

No, it all boils down to a choice between believing that quantum events "just happen" and their being caused to happen by processes currently unknown to us. No reference to the noumena is needed.

Did you read anything i wrote? it's not just 'currently unknown to us' that is at stake.

Unless quantum theory is capable of omniscience, that is exactly what is at stake.

vicdan wrote:

The belief that things "just happen" is the most unscientific premise imaginable.

Good thing Qm doesn't posit that, eh?

The standard Copenhagen interpretation of QM does posit it, in essence.

vicdan wrote:

As I've mentioned previously, I don't believe in any kind of noumena

And yet you refer to them time and time again.

You'll have to back that up with an example.

The only noumena that I posit is the very world we live in.

vicdan wrote:

A word of advice: Not everyone who finds your world-view to be narrow is a New Age clone. There are other forms of opposition out there. You need to get over your obsession with the New Age and try exploring them for a change.

Dude, I know that you kids aren't NewAge. i don't think I accused QRS of NewAgeism. You are nuts of a wholly different flavor, and I am not sure why you bring up my disdain for NewAge here.

Your instinctive assumption that I believe in a noumena, despite repeated denials, illustrates that you still interpret all opposition to your world-view as essentially being New Age in flavour. It reveals a lazy habit of filing things away into broad pre-conceived categories that seem to have originated from your brush with the New Age in the past.

It's a bit like how a medieval Churchman might instinctivley dismiss all opposition to his views - whether it be from Galileo or a crazed madman - as the ravings of devil-worshippers, all because he himself once cavorted with devil-worshippers.

Not to worry, he is now at peace with himself. He has gone beyond all inner conflict.

-

David Quinn wrote:Randomness, in the weak, technical sense, is part of any predictive theory.

As opposed to randomness in noumenal sense, apart from 'weak, technical' epistemic randomness? :D

The standard Copenhagen interpretation of QM does posit it, in essence.

Nope.

You'll have to back that up with an example.

I did many times before, calling you out on that on the spot. You wish to be able to talk about the 'ultimate reality' apart from perception. That is as noumenal as you can get.

Your instinctive assumption that I believe in a noumena, despite repeated denials, illustrates that you still interpret all opposition to your world-view as essentially being New Age in flavour.

Put down that crack pipe, dude. New Age and noumenalist thinking have very little intrinsic relationship with each other. NewAgers, xians, and you QRSniks are equally guilty of the noumenalist delusion. It underlies most faith-based worldviews, i think.

I truly have no idea out of which pan-forsaken ass you pulled the bizarre assumption that accusation of noumenalist thinking entails imputations of NewAgeism. You are off your rocker, dude.

vicdan wrote:Why don't you try to figure that out?

Hint: The answer lies in the meaning of instrumentalism.

Well I find it hard to believe someone could be strictly an instrumentalist and have zero curiosity in regard to existence.

You have never speculated upon a "theory of everything"?

Ataraxia wrote:Well I find it hard to believe someone could be strictly an instrumentalist and have zero curiosity in regard to existence.

Why on earth would you assume an instrumentalist would lack curiosity about the world?

I am a committed pragmatist (instrumentalism comes as a part of that package, pretty much). Without false boasting, you will be hard-pressed to find someone in the vicinity who knows more about the world, or who has more curiosity about it. My interests range from physics to philosophy, from history to economics, from informatics to linguistics, from psychology to political theory, etc.

methinks you need to adjust your assumptions.

I don't doubt you are curious about"the world";I said existence.

And the difference is?..

Go ahead, explicate your implicit assumptions. Your reply should contain the answer to your question, if you are honest enough to see it.

vicdan wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Randomness, in the weak, technical sense, is part of any predictive theory.

As opposed to randomness in noumenal sense, apart from 'weak, technical' epistemic randomness? :D

No. Weak randomness involves deterministic processes whose outcomes we cannot accurately predict, either because we don't have enough information or because of inherent limits to our perception. The roll of a dice, for example, or the arisal of a quantum event. Strong randomnness involves things just happening with no cause whatsover.

Again, no reference to the noumenon is needed.

All predictive theories have to deal with the weak randomness inherent in them. The difference with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is that it fosters a belief in strong randomness, primarily because physicists tend to be massive egotists who want to believe they can capture the entire Universe with their theories.

vicdan wrote:

The standard Copenhagen interpretation of QM does posit it, in essence.

Nope.

Yes.

vicdan wrote:

You'll have to back that up with an example.

I did many times before, calling you out on that on the spot. You wish to be able to talk about the 'ultimate reality' apart from perception. That is as noumenal as you can get.

I have never talked about an ultimate reality that is divorced from perception.

vicdan wrote:

Your instinctive assumption that I believe in a noumena, despite repeated denials, illustrates that you still interpret all opposition to your world-view as essentially being New Age in flavour.

Put down that crack pipe, dude. New Age and noumenalist thinking have very little intrinsic relationship with each other. NewAgers, xians, and you QRSniks are equally guilty of the noumenalist delusion. It underlies most faith-based worldviews, i think.

I truly have no idea out of which pan-forsaken ass you pulled the bizarre assumption that accusation of noumenalist thinking entails imputations of NewAgeism. You are off your rocker, dude.

You said it yourself ... "faith-based views". A person with blind faith in something is a person with blind faith in something, regardless of what that something might be. Reducing me to the level of the New Ager - because, in your estimation, we both operate out of blind faith - is akin to calling me a New Ager.

It is the same broad category that you put everyone who doesn't restrict themselves to your narrow outlook on things. It is lazy and conflicts with your boast that you strive to understand the world.

-

vicdan wrote: I am a committed pragmatist (instrumentalism comes as a part of that package, pretty much).

Instrumentalism is such a vague and useless philosophy. It basically boils down to the assertion that "truth is what works".

This means that even Christians are instrumentalists.

-

vicdan wrote:And the difference is?..

I'm not very good with language so I'll let Kierkegaard say it.

The positiveness of historical knowledge is illusory, since it is approximation-knowledge; the speculative result is delusion. For all this positive knowledge fails to express the situation of the knowing subject in existence. It concerns rather a fictitious objective subject, and to confuse oneself with such a subject is to be duped. Every subject is an existing subject, which should receive an essential expression in all his knowledge. Particularly, it must be expressed through the prevention of an illusory finality, whether in perceptual certainty, or in historical knowledge, or in illusory speculative results. In historical knowledge, the subject learns a great deal about the world, but nothing about himself. He moves constantly in a sphere of approximation-knowledge, in his supposed positivity deluding himself with the semblance of certainty; but certainty can only be had in the infinite, where he cannot as an existing subject remain, but only repeatedly arrive. Nothing historical can become infinitely certain for me except the fact that of my own existence (which again cannot become infinitely certain for any other individual, who has infinite certainty of only his own existence), and this is not something historical.

David Quinn wrote:You said it yourself ... "faith-based views". A person with blind faith in something is a person with blind faith in something, regardless of what that something might be.

Right. Such a person can be a NewAger, a xian, a marxist -- or a QRSnik.

Reducing me to the level of the New Ager - because, in your estimation, we both operate out of blind faith - is akin to calling me a New Ager.

No, it's not. it's a different sort of faith-soaked delusion.

Your point is like saying that since both depression and paranoia are mental illnesses, calling you depressed is like calling you paranoid.

Calling you as bad as NewAgers is not the same as calling you NewAgers. You are in fact one of the 'other [than newAge] forms of opposition' that I supposedly fail to perceive you as.

DUH.

It is the same broad category that you put everyone who doesn't restrict themselves to your narrow outlook on things.

I calls them as I sees them -- and i always provide detailed justification for such a call. I did so in the radio interview. instead of bitching, you should address that detailed justification -- but you couldn't do it then, and you can't do it now.

And yes, I consider faith to be the greatest evil which plagues mankind. Our propensity to believe because we wish to believe, rather than because evidence justifies such belief, is amazing and pervasive, and I think it underlies most forms of evil and corruption, either moral or intellectual.