Hi Frank, No. Strangely and unfortunately, I have never met Jon in person.
Eric > On Jul 15, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > > Eric, Jon > > Did you guys know each other at SFI? > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:31 PM David Eric Smith <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Roger, Dave, Jon, > > Jon’s answers are at a level of technical sophistication and quality I don’t > have to offer. They already subsume and surpass anything I would say below., > to the extent that I think I appreciate roughly what they refer to. I also > admit not having been able to justify the time to watch internet videos, much > as I would like to, so I haven’t watched Bethe and Feynman lectures (though > have read Feynman on this topic at some length over the decades). > > But there is a thing it is hard to let go, and which perhaps is not identical > to things already said on the thread. Repeatedly the following fragment > appears as an anchor point: > > [From Bethe below -- I lost the indent symbols:] > 2) "He then goes on to say that the thing which _is_ completely > uncertain is the orbit of the electron in an atom." > > What I wanted to add was: > > Why would anyone expect that an electron in an atom has “an orbit”. The > sentence structure entails that assumption, but why would one make it? An > orbit is an emergent property of “objects” that arise in classical limits, > like the wetness of water is an emergent property of a condensed phase of > matter. Sure, one can ask “how wet is a single H2O molecule”, and then > defend the sentence on the ground that it doesn’t violate rules of syntax. > But would we do that now? If not, why would we grant defensibility to > sentences that contain word sequences like “the orbit of the electron in an > atom”? > > I wish I could put my finger on how and why what I think is the same thing > can be so differently experienced by people. I believe the following are > sort of to the same point: > > From Roger: > > The physicists first discovered that their existing categories of > explanations were mutating into each other, and then watched the objects of > their study disappear into wave functions. [btw, I find this a beautiful > articulation]. Wave functions could be manipulated to predict what nature > would do, but they couldn't be disassembled to show what nature is doing. > > From Dave: > > The tension between what the math can describe and what the math 'means' is > not new. > > What is new; the math has become so esoteric, so incestuous, that it "means" > nothing. It is not even a description of 'the world' merely a description of > itself. > > > I wonder if the way to understand these perceptions links back to Nick’s > metaphor monism/mania/madness (in the Italian sense of “sono pazzo per”, said > of a crush): > > It could be that people never really think “about” “anything”. What they > refer to as “thinking” is just the management of metaphors that point to > metaphors which are metaphors of metaphors. (Nick, embrace your inner > category theorist.) If that is right, then the only thing quantum mechanics > can ever be is a metaphor for classical mechanics with some new management > rules that use other metaphors to create tension and discomfort, and the > classical mechanics is a set of metaphors for something else (greater fleas > having lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum). If that is true of everybody, > then it is true of me, too, and the fact that it seems incomplete as a > description of my experience is just part of a larger self-delusion. But it > feels too linguistic to me, and not reflective enough of the possible > diversity of cognitive or experiential states. > > The Bethe fragment above feels familiar to me as an antique language that > characterized the ones two generations before me, who reached cognitive > adulthood in a world before QM was established, and who in fact had to > achieve that establishment climbing up on a Wittgenstein’s ladder of > classical mechanics and frequentist probability theory, which they could not > then bring themselves to throw away, any more than they could lose the > accents of their birth languages even as they became good speakers of > languages where they emigrated. As I think Dave said in some earlier thread > (though not in quite these words), the metaphors are Wittgenstein ladders, > but that is not the same thing as the places one climbs to on them. > > > I _think_ it is different to say that the math is a structured setting within > which the mind is offered a way to have new experiences. Like working as a > musician is a setting within which the mind is offered a way to have new > experiences of music. Or being a tennis player, or being a chess competitor, > or a crime boss, or emperor of the galaxy. An electron is not a metaphor for > a planet. An electron is an electron. But for the word to take on a > meaning, and hence the sentence it appears in, we will have to experience > some new thoughts. > > I don’t know what it would mean to say that mathematics is “a description of > itself”, but I think I am familiar with various practices of doing things > with (fairly low-level, applied) mathematics, and having it affect the > inventory and process of my mental imagery. > > Dunno. > > Eric > > > > > > >> On Jul 15, 2020, at 3:14 AM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 3:26 PM Jon Zingale <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Roger, >> >> I wish to clarify what I believe our positions to be. Your position is >> that Richard Feynman claims that no one understands quantum mechanics >> and that you believe him. I am claiming that misunderstanding photons >> has its origins in demanding that photons be greek waves or particles >> and that this perspective is reminiscent of the classical problems of >> compass and straight-edge geometry. >> >> Yes, I believe Richard Feynman as I understand him, and I think he makes his >> point quite clearly in the lecture. And I believe Hans Bethe in his 1999 >> lectures identified the exact same part of quantum mechanics which is not >> and can not be "understood" in the usual sense of physicists explaining >> things. >> >> I haven't seen any indication that you understand what I am saying, what >> Feynman was saying, or what Bethe was saying. >> >> I don't think your analogy to post-Euclidean geometry has any bearing. The >> geometers simply changed the postulates, turned the logic crank, and kept on >> reasoning about geometries in the same way. New geometries for a new age, >> but categorically geometries just like the old one. The physicists first >> discovered that their existing categories of explanations were mutating into >> each other, and then watched the objects of their study disappear into wave >> functions. Wave functions could be manipulated to predict what nature would >> do, but they couldn't be disassembled to show what nature is doing. >> >> you write: >> "...and that led to philosophers proclaiming that everything is >> uncertain. But there are no bad faith actors there, it's just typical >> science journalism, trolling for the juiciest clickbait." >> >> Our discussion arose in the context of 'quantum woo', advocates and >> discontents. From my perspective, it is an instance of bad faith >> when 'philosophers' claim that *the uncertainty of everything* is >> justified by Heisenberg. Additionally, it is an instance of bad faith >> when 'journalists' unfaithfully invoke Heisenberg so as to produce >> clickbait. I gather from your comment that with more discussion you >> perhaps may agree, to some extent? >> >> It would be bad faith if the journalist or philosopher understood quantum >> mechanics and deliberately misrepresented it. Misunderstandings are much >> more common than villains. Bethe did not accuse anyone of bad faith. >> >> In one sense, I interpret Bethe as speaking about the lack of >> uncertainty associated with macroscopic events as a rebuttal to the >> flights of fancy, the 'quantum woo' espoused by first-year physics >> students. However, further analysis of my interpretation perhaps cannot >> be certain. In another sense, and intended with less cheek, I interpret >> Bethe as highlighting the fact that the point metaphor diverges for the >> very small. Heisenberg uncertainty is a claim about how well we can >> approximate an object of inquiry with a particle, ie. treat the object >> as a dynamical Euclidean point. We can treat a pea or the moon >> accurately in this way, but we cannot treat an electron accurately in >> this way. >> >> you write: >> 1) "I especially liked the derivation of the uncertainty principle >> through the limitations on representing a free particle with a Fourier >> series" >> >> 2) "He then goes on to say that the thing which _is_ completely >> uncertain is the orbit of the electron in an atom." >> >> Bethe speaks to your first point by saying that "this is the best we can >> do with bell-shaped curves". In doing so, he is referring to a toolset >> and it is only within the scope of a given toolset that the meaning of >> uncertainty is defined. Crudely, I interpret the work done by the mixed >> efforts of topos theorists and theoretical physicists to be an effort to >> flesh out better matching objects, objects which are more like electrons >> than Euclid's points are to being like electrons[⏁]. Speaking to your >> second point, my hope is that as such a program continues, we will one >> day have a metaphor for quantum things that we find as satisfactory as >> points are for macroscopic things[⏄]. >> >> >> If we imagine a theory which transcends quantum mechanics as it is currently >> formulated, then we can imagine some features of quantum mechanics might >> turn out to be artefacts of the methods we used? Sure, I can't and won't >> argue with that proposition. >> >> As long as we're talking about quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation, >> wave functions, basis sets for describing harmonic motion, then Bethe is >> saying that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a consequence of fourier >> analysis, which is a neat argument that I should have learned decades ago. >> >> We can talk about what Bethe says, or I can talk about what Bethe says and >> you can talk about what you imagine the future will say about what Bethe >> says, it's up to you. >> >> I suggest that my arrogance in this matter is not the claim that someone >> understands quantum mechanics in some universally acceptable way. My >> arrogant assertion is that forcing a known-to-be incongruous model is >> the wellspring of a perceived paradox and an unjustly disproportionate >> production of 'quantum woo'. >> >> "forcing a known-to-be incongruous model" is exactly what Schrödinger did, >> if you remember Bethe's story about the ski holiday where all Sommerfeld's >> students were laughing at de Broglie's paper, and the result was quantum >> mechanics. I guess the invention of quantum mechanics must be a necessary >> condition for "quantum woo". >> >> -- rec -- >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,rTNjam_xSMbe0yQajbbV0QB1rxdPZ2QDOWFfNdIIh4FyCk_3BWD5d6wRCrCIu5CwvKlfKcldi-SthUdWS8-equUI6hJb86GO07uPnfkOwq-xUHbXXpHa0AL85A,,&typo=1> >> un/subscribe >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,6RxTtddaxKMkYuYjA-L5jV0s-cRnY6j7socJs1S1ErMh1YE-0QFO-H1pmMCYXFRPG4hhtMkRwsjiK74nUHjAqoJu4SBkW9O4PWKTvWSjJFcweKxGhFNg&typo=1 >> >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,6RxTtddaxKMkYuYjA-L5jV0s-cRnY6j7socJs1S1ErMh1YE-0QFO-H1pmMCYXFRPG4hhtMkRwsjiK74nUHjAqoJu4SBkW9O4PWKTvWSjJFcweKxGhFNg&typo=1> >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> >> FRIAM-COMIC >> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,X30l1eToRzCrllYt3MzL6jOaT-le1HfVuLPDYth-HvmMpxIdgRAwqoaBp9xGQtECUkehYx7Y24bYeCYl5yfAx7PVjCEAhGuEEqKlQvnaWec,&typo=1 >> >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,X30l1eToRzCrllYt3MzL6jOaT-le1HfVuLPDYth-HvmMpxIdgRAwqoaBp9xGQtECUkehYx7Y24bYeCYl5yfAx7PVjCEAhGuEEqKlQvnaWec,&typo=1> >> > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,rAA3G-Zlqy_Eb5AmNbK0YY_pAuWK6FzyQ_LK371egODdxJN-9J-UpqMjEMdXtaeo4MrhgOSNRRk-soCpx_nXXxF9cBx7PcJjWOeU72yNv5sAiT6vGf7uTaf3PQ,,&typo=1> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,51LAyYeYAVj2k6edTeSl6wullmJe9gxYypQOc0OTr1cf-whvW1ilQ0ein6M3i0737GcU0ZD1EmT9JGdvVI7K7C5U7Hy57EGJWGBgVBhPmNDGNcEjRRn_87Pp&typo=1> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,84V9KwmYu_lKFILj2bW5JOsAdd6h_9sCRnexcbL_3xcdnx8z-C8bw6CCNMQ-vmowZj1ZuBxdZ7v2fHhntinHoeBRjwWqaFZZ-Y5KAseUlBysGpFckIJS&typo=1> > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,WvhnGmyq1iAmWtq_P1hyJTv244SvENhCN708F6HP_qxzFWRzs2oRsKAW5yRk4f93GddC2Olx0hq5jz65GJmn5ByYQwNoPAaGm9yQsa0nEw,,&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,7C6hsfoFwLR0aQLoU8dv7x8SCaZIiZbEudUxRoHZ9KNlux407xsZRZ9NSl3xmO4LW0uTI94KGFTyssq9YDKujW9CXcQwocz4fTnDgdoF0A,,&typo=1 >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
