> On 24 Jan 2020, at 20:46, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > On 1/24/2020 2:40 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> 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 >> >> <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/ >> <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 >> <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. > > Vic wasn't right about everything. An elementary particle is an element of a > mathematical theory to. And the fact that particles appear simply as a > consequence of assuming an accelerated coordinate system, argues for > regarding them as excitations of a field which is then more fundamental. > What is considered real isn't some deep question to be answered by > meta-physical contemplation. It's just a choice, part of choosing a theory. > Vic emphasized operational the importance of operational definitions; and the > operational definition of "real" was it kicks back when you kick it. But > what counts as kicking and kicking back is also theory dependent.
Absolutely. Even in metaphysics. Assuming mechanism, we can say that the cautious and close observation of the physical reality makes it impossible to be the fundamental reality. Math kicks back, like Penrose defends. An important point where I agree with sir Penrose. (But he was wrong on Gödel). Bruno > > Brent > >> >> @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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ef073442-05b2-4909-ac36-4981e8d0a6f2%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ef073442-05b2-4909-ac36-4981e8d0a6f2%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c67455c8-2a8c-e666-1f67-9755f87e94c5%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c67455c8-2a8c-e666-1f67-9755f87e94c5%40verizon.net?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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/349F1F06-53C3-4D9B-81A0-BFBD26E5E59F%40ulb.ac.be.
