> On 24 Jan 2020, at 09:56, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> 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.
The main error is that they take both the platonism view for math, but remain realist on the physical reality, when we can show that once you are realist on the math, even just on elementary arithmetic, you have to extract the appearance of the wave function from the numbers (sigma_1, partial computable relation). The platonism here is the good idea, but they add a physical realism which is not coherent with it. It is the same error than those who use mechanism together with the brain-mind identity, which is nonsense. Bruno > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ > > @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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/899a092d-f315-4624-bfee-fcd658b78796%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/899a092d-f315-4624-bfee-fcd658b78796%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/DECFDBB8-8ABC-4083-BC57-6D20E8B647FE%40ulb.ac.be.
