tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post7260762532311943812..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: The Metaphysics of the Scientific MethodLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-80648055028493664082007-02-28T10:12:00.000-07:002007-02-28T10:12:00.000-07:00Timmo,I suspect I'm not quite getting your real po...Timmo,<BR/><BR/>I suspect I'm not quite getting your real point here.<BR/><BR/>I'm not at all disputing that Quantum Mechanics appears to be incomplete. At the very least, it does not at all cohere with General Relativity; by itself this incoherence argues strongly for incompleteness.<BR/><BR/>So is Quantum Mechanics <I>The Truth</I>? Is General Relativity The Truth? Well, they each fits certain observational facts <I>extremely</I> well. In this sense, they are small-tee truthful, but probably not as <I>good</I> (fitting more facts with fewer total premises in an entirely coherent way) as some theory or theories as yet undiscovered.<BR/><BR/>If we consider truth as a number, representing not distance from The Truth as Popper would have it but by fitness to facts, there's no contradiction.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-36734574126370664692007-02-28T10:02:00.000-07:002007-02-28T10:02:00.000-07:00One of the really nice things about having smart r...One of the really nice things about having smart readers is that I discover explanations which seem entirely obvious to me are in actuality matters of controversy, and offer me an opportunity to clarify my thinking.<BR/><BR/>I'm speaking of "determinism" in a very narrow sense: the empirical predictions of a scientific theory, whatever they happen to be, are deterministic in the sense that they are derived from the hypotheses by formal logical deduction.<BR/><BR/>Whether any such theory is phenomenologically complete, or how well the formalism coheres with our other knowledge are horses of entirely different colors.<BR/><BR/>There is no ambiguity at all about what QM says about the probabilities regarding observations of ensembles. In this <I>extremely</I> narrow sense, QM is unambiguous and "deterministic".Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-60070587104891466072007-02-27T21:26:00.000-07:002007-02-27T21:26:00.000-07:00Whoa! I meant to say: How to mathematically extra...Whoa! I meant to say: How to mathematically extract that information and impose it on experimental setups is understood.Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-58488243257361460622007-02-27T21:24:00.000-07:002007-02-27T21:24:00.000-07:00Larry,"The empirical meaning of even something as ...Larry,<BR/><BR/>"The empirical meaning of even something as refractory as QM is entirely deterministic: It tells us exactly what to expect in terms of experimental result."<BR/><BR/>Not quite. Forgive me for pressing my point. <BR/><BR/>As you may already know, quantum mechanics makes only statistical predictations: one cannot, with a quantum-mechanical theory, predict what really will happen. In particular, the state of a system is represented by an abstract vector in (an infinitely dimensional) Hilbert space, written as a "ket" |A>. From a state vector |A>, it is possible to calculate all possible results of performing an experiment on the system it describes. How to mathematically extract that information and impose it on experimental setups.<BR/><BR/>The main interpretative question is what our vector |A> really denotes -- does |A> capture <I>all</I> of the physical facts as many scientists have thought? This is <I>not</I> purely a philosophical question either; if state vectors (wavefunctions) like |A> do not exhaustively characterize the systems they are meant to describe, then there must exist a class of hidden variables which <I>does</I>. <BR/><BR/>Obtaining a correct interpretation of quantum mechanics and whether it makes a claim to completeness is empirically important -- if we know that it is only <I>meant</I> as an incomplete description of nature, then we can seek out superior alternatives. In fact, Einstein famously argued that properly understood quantum mechanics does not purport to exhaustively describe nature. As a result, he sought to discover a correct hidden variable theory.<BR/><BR/>I think all this illustrates the interconnectedness of intellectual disciplines emphasized by Quine. There are no sharp boundaries between speculative metaphysics and empirical science, and they certainly blend together at this point. The idea that we can neatly separate conceptual and empirical questions has been forcefully criticized by Quine, a critique which culminates in his attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction.Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-84768266486766997062007-02-27T18:11:00.000-07:002007-02-27T18:11:00.000-07:00Touché. Still, there's eight skitty zillion kinds ...<I>Touché</I>. Still, there's eight skitty zillion kinds of meaning.<BR/><BR/>The empirical meaning of even something as refractory as QM is entirely deterministic: It tells us exactly what to expect in terms of experimental result.<BR/><BR/>The philosophical <I>interpretation</I> of that clear, deterministic meaning is another matter entirely.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14930980176194314002007-02-27T17:06:00.000-07:002007-02-27T17:06:00.000-07:00Larry,You write, "I'm talking about a sort of "sem...Larry,<BR/><BR/>You write, "I'm talking about a sort of "semantic" determinism: the meaning of a scientific theory is deterministic and thus everyone agrees what a scientific theory means." It is not true that the meaning of scientific theories is always clear. From its inception until today, quantum mechanics has been interpreted and re-interpreted in many incompatible ways! While what is called the Copenhagen Interpretation has emerged as the dominant one, it has had no shortage of objectors. In this case, what is agreed upon is how to apply the mathematical formalism. Its <I>meaning</I>, however, remains a topic of disagreement.Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-72364870012441285012007-02-27T07:47:00.000-07:002007-02-27T07:47:00.000-07:00Thanks for the "brilliant" and "exceptionally luci...Thanks for the "brilliant" and "exceptionally lucid". I blush.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if my further insights will be "table toppling", though.<BR/><BR/><I>If a) science were 100% reliable for predicting cause and effect then b) reality is deterministic.</I><BR/><BR/>In this essay, I'm talking about "determinism" in a very different way. I'm talking about a sort of "semantic" determinism: the meaning of a scientific theory is deterministic and thus everyone agrees what a scientific theory <I>means</I>.<BR/><BR/>I'm drawing the contrast not between determinism and free will, but between the deterministic meaning of scientific theories and the non-deterministic meanings we find in, for instance, theology or the worst sort of philosophical metaphysics.<BR/><BR/>Now that you've prodded me, though, I think I'll write soon on the determinism and predictability of reality itself.<BR/><BR/>As to where I stand about free will, my position can be summarized quite simply: After all my reading and thinking, I'm no closer to understanding what "free will" actually <I>means</I>--even to the extent of knowing whether I myself have "free will". I thus conclude that, barring some profound new insight, the term is meaningless.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-76242928670819796582007-02-27T07:13:00.000-07:002007-02-27T07:13:00.000-07:00The two teaser strands coming out of this post, th...The two teaser strands coming out of this post, the determinism of the scientific method and your gnomic remarks on Truth and the perfect scientific theory seem to be pointing towards a table toppling insight next time, so I hope but I am not sure these remarks are directed towards what you are trying to say. <BR/><BR/>Saying that the scientific method is partially deterministic seems self-evidently true as it is used as a tool for prediction. At its strongest this would support this premise:<BR/><BR/>If a) science were 100% reliable for predicting cause and effect then b) reality is deterministic. <BR/><BR/>The existence of a perfect scientific theory which revealed the entire workings of reality would presumably mean that reality was deterministic. <BR/><BR/>Yet the moment a) begins to crumble can we really say that real meat and bones determinism is so undefeatably in the running as it was before? Maybe we can, but partial determinism seems so vague as to be useless.<BR/><BR/>None of this is of course criticizing your brilliant and exceptionally lucid analysis, but more asking for your to put your cards on the table a bit more as to where you stand on the free will/determinism debate.toby lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15687485829494173937noreply@blogger.com