Agnostic.com

5 1

The problem with giving a QM interpretation, not just a comforting, homey sort of interpretation, (i.e., not just an interpretation according to which the world isn't too different from the familiar world of common sense) is that we are unable to give any interpretation at all, unless you happen to be a compositional nihilist. Then everything fits perfect

Compositional Nihilism.

Taking science metaphysically seriously, means that metaphysicians/philosophers must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

πŸ™‚

Danggali 4 Jan 18
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Since the time of Faraday and Maxwell physics has abandoned the materialist/physicalist world view. Anyone still clinging to that sort of illusion is living a lie.

Reality is not the way it seems.

0

O Chaswin,

Born on high to sail ... and for a puff of wind ye tire and fail.

There is no best for human perception, for human understanding, there is only the truth. And you’re promoting mediocrity.

,

0

Here's the most important thing we can learn about cosmologies from the study of science; they are ALL eventually discredited.
Now maybe we have finally hit on the right metaphysical recipe to describe the life the universe and everything - but I doubt it.
It's probably best and more rewarding to approach the world using a human measure; experience. Take the phenomena for how they appear to be and that should put you in accord with others in your social sphere. Be more existential in your life.
It's only when you cannot 'save the appearances' with your description that you need to offer noumenal expressions. But overall if it aint broke do not try to fix it and if it works it works. Humans are always going to have to interpret the world with a limited set of senses, so attempts to desribe underlying causes are always going to lead to speculative answers.
In other words, who cares about QM.

@TheAstroChuck A Daniel come to judgement. πŸ™‚

@TheAstroChuck I woulda thought 'bogus' may, perhaps, semantically speakin, come under the umbrella of judgmental?

πŸ™‚

@TheAstroChuck Rubish. You have ,without any support simply JUDGED me to be false without the slightest thought. Here's couple of examples of now discredited cosmologies. Ptolemy, Copurnicus, Kepler, Newton, Tycho Brahe, Girodano Bruno, Aristotle. Now tell me how these cosmologies are still creditable???

@TheAstroChuck Sorry disappoint you but Newton and Kepler are no longer valid, and neither is Hoyle. Yet they all complied with obsrvations. The problem is what we have to do to make sense of the raw empiricism, to tell a narrative we employ metaphor and so our cosmologists are metaphysical. But you will also have to recognise your naive view of the history of science as Ptolemy and Aristarchus' cosmologists also saved the appearances and offered models that were predictive despite their flaws. QM is no different, it's a cobbled together guess about how to explain the inexplicable. It's just a matter of time before it has to be trashed. And your last comment false, no relativity does NOT comply with Newton.

@TheAstroChuck Ha f'ing ha. If you want to debate you need to do your homework. When was the last time anyone agreed that the solar system was governed by Platonic solids?? Let me know, because that's what Kepler thought.
You can still use Ptolemy's Almagest to predict the position of the planets relative to earth. An since Aristarchus went no further than a simple heliocentric hypothesis, he still stands.
You just don't know your history.

@TheAstroChuck " You just don't under stand basic science. " if you are going to talk bollocks then there is little point continuing.. SInce you have ZERO evidence about my understanding of science then you are simply abusing the most basic empirical rules of argumentation. This is a discussion about history, in particular history of science, which you have shown yourself to be ignorant of.

0

It means that Philisophy (metaphysics) is the last religion

2

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:268372
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.