On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 7:42:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2019 4:01 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there >>> whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to >>> agree about or argue about anything. >>> >>> >>> Really? >>> >>> >>> What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise >>> (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) >>> are *theories of reality*. >>> >>> >>> Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, >>> they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the theory >>> makes accurate and reliable predictions. >>> >>> Brent >>> “All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave >>> wall.” >>> --- Sean Carroll >>> >> >> >> Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said. >> >> >> Have you read the parable of the cave?? >> >> Brent >> > > > > It's the very definition of Platonism: Platonic Forms. > > > [Wikipedia: The Allegory of the Cave] > > The allegory is probably related to Plato's theory of *Forms*, according > to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world known to us > through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of > reality. Only knowledge of the *Forms* constitutes real knowledge or what > Socrates considers "the good". > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm > > Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, > etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of* > Forms*. > > The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this. > > In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the *Theory of Forms* > to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can > see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire > and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The > puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows > on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the > real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are > shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. > > > OK. You read it. Maybe you didn't read the quote of Carroll, in which he > plainly says the "prisoners" whos pay attention to what they see and make > inferences from their observations are the ones that advance > knowledge...not the mystics like Plato to who think mere introspection is > superior. > > Vic would have agreed completely with Carroll on that point. He called > Carroll a Platonist once because Carroll considered quantum fields more > fundamental than particles. I don't think fields vs particles has much to > do with Platonism and at other times Vic seemed to agree one was a good as > the other. I (and I think Bob and LC) consider fields more fundamental > because particles come and go depending on acceleration and the existence > of horizons. > > Brent >
The basic Vic "Platonism" complaint is in terms of taking a theory's mathematical formulation (like the wave function, etc.) and saying that the mathematical entities of the formulation are physically real. - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ Vic differed of course from Sean on Many-Worlds, so there was that as well. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/30/why-the-many-worlds-formulation-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/ : I have often talked about the *Many-Worlds* or Everett approach to quantum mechanics — here’s an explanatory video, an excerpt from From Eternity to Here, and slides from a talk. But I don’t think I’ve ever explained as persuasively as possible why I think it’s the right approach. So that’s what I’m going to try to do here. Although to be honest right off the bat, I’m actually going to tackle a slightly easier problem: explaining why the many-worlds approach is not completely insane, and indeed *quite natural*. The harder part is explaining why it actually works, which I’ll get to in another post. Whether Worlds or Histories are more "natural" is certainly up for debate, as Fay Dowker does in debates with her Many-Worlds opponents. - pt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
