On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 3:16:19 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 24, 2020 at 1:56:02 AM UTC-7, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 4:15:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> Carroll was pointing out the fallacy of the Platonist idea that we >>> achieve true knowledge by pure contemplation, i.e. mathematics and >>> philosophy, and are only deceived by the senses. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >> *Carroll echoes Everett in contending that the key mathematical >> expression in quantum physics, known as the wave function, should be taken >> seriously. If the wave function contains multiple possible realities, then >> all those possibilities must actually exist. As Carroll argues, the wave >> function is “ontic” — a direct representation of reality — rather than >> “epistemic,” a merely useful measure of our knowledge about reality for use >> in calculating experimental expectations. In epistemic interpretations, >> “the wave function isn’t a physical thing at all, but simply a way of >> characterizing what we know about reality.”* >> >> >> https://www.sciencenews.org/article/sean-carroll-something-deeply-hidden-quantum-physics-many-worlds >> >> >> *When Weinberg promotes a “realist” interpretation of quantum mechanics, >> in which “the wave function is the representative of physical reality,” he >> is implying that the artifacts theorists include in their models, such as >> quantum fields, are the ultimate ingredients of reality -- thus expressing >> a platonic view of reality commonly held by many theoretical physicists and >> mathematicians.* >> >> *Many physicists have uncritically adopted platonic realism as their >> personal interpretation of the meaning of physics. This not inconsequential >> because it associates a reality that lies beyond the senses with the >> cognitive tools humans use to describe observations.* >> >> >> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ >> >> @philipthrift >> > > I don't get it. If Weinberg asserts that quantum fields are ultimate > ingredients of reality, what has this to do with platonic realism? AG >
If a quantum field (or any field, see "Timeless Reality" [chapter 10 "Dreams of Fields"] by Victor Stenger - https://books.google.com/books?id=HbIVfL7KpqcC - for example) is just a mathematical entity - a mathematical solution of an equation written in a mathematical language - that (usefully) models something in nature, then to "make it real" is platonism. That's what Vic's books and articles are all about. @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ef073442-05b2-4909-ac36-4981e8d0a6f2%40googlegroups.com.
