Tim Maudlin: Philosophy of science and quantum physics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лип 2024
- Tim Maudlin is a philosopher of science who has done influential work on the foundations of physics and logic.
Episode links, show notes and bonus content here: www.matthewgeleta.com/
Make a one-off donation here: bit.ly/donate-to-paradigm
@timmaudlin6997 #physics #quantumphysics #philosophy
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:18 Richard Feynman's views on philosophy of science
5:22 What is philosophy of science?
9:00 Why are physicists skeptical about philosophy?
13:02 Why is quantum mechanics 'strange'?
15:45 Imaginary numbers in physics and engineering
20:37 What is quantum mechanics and the wave function?
29:40 Interpretations of the wave function
36:56 Many worlds and David Deutsche
39:40 Pilot wave vs many worlds theories of quantum mechanics
52:09 Why is the pilot wave theory not taught at university?
58:35 Occam's razor and wave function collapse
1:08:15 Are humans capable of understanding quantum mechanics?
1:23:30 John Bell Institute and beautiful Croatia!
Tim’s links:
- John Bell Institute: www.johnbellinstitute.org/
- Tim’s website: www.tim-maudlin.site/ - Наука та технологія
Wonderful. This is the best interview with Tim Maudlin that I ever watched. All questions are right on point, and the answers are very thoughtful and interesting.
There was a Philosophy book on Professor Einstein's desk at his Princeton office desk the day he died. There is a photo that was taken of his desk the day he died.
It would be cool to have Tim Maudlin and David Deutsch together on the podcast at some point. Wondering how they would reconcile their opinions on many worlds theory if they get a chance to talk through it. I think this conversation would be very interesting in regards to the other quantum field theories Tim was mentioning.
Great suggestion. David Deutsch is on my hit list :)
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
A clear thinker
really fantastic video. what could possibly be more important than understanding the natural world?
I like your interviewing style, and I hope your channel grows!
Thanks for the kind words! I have some amazing conversations lined up over the next few months and can't want to share them
Great interview - hope the Institute in this apparent Paradise on Earth gets fully funded and you get to talk to him again on location!
Thank you for this interview, I read Maudlin's book as an assigned text for my philosophy of physics class and thought it was pretty good, but I found his responses in this truly impressive.
Glad it was helpful!
Great job Matt!
I would add Hermann Minkowski as he never gets credit for the original view that radically changed our understanding of reality.
Good point - kudos to Minkowski
This is arguably a master piece interview.
The areas faulted are surely in dare need. However, the area of development of skills for the savanah which has featured in many other discourses even elsewhere might be diversionary. I for one in the savanah find myself at home in both the micro and macro realms.
But what Tim says is needed to fix the gaps is dead on point. Many current approaches of attempting to unify classical and quantum worlds have a shortfall. In particular getting science and philosophy to work in harmony is of paramount importance, I think
One of the best explanations of this I have ever heard.. no, the best one
Very in depth , unbiased with reference, thank you 🙏
Thanks for watching. Glad you found it valuable
Early on (16 min in) Maudlin says relativity and quantum mechanics are both strange (different from the way we typically think about the world), but there is a difference. In relativity you will eventually “get it,” resolve its mysteries and obtain a “clear account of the strangeness” as you work with the theory. Not so in quantum mechanics. There, no matter how much you work with the theory, you never “get it” because “there is no standard clear account of what the theory is even postulating.” He’s right of course, but there is a new way to understand quantum mechanics that addresses this issue.
Carlo Rovelli suggested this new approach to understanding quantum mechanics in 1996. He noted that attempts to understand quantum mechanics today are in a “morass” (Maudlin’s term, 1 hr 16 m in) in exact analogy with what physicists faced trying to understand the Lorentz transformations before special relativity. At that time, physicists tried to account for the strangeness of the Lorentz transformations (e.g., length contraction and time dilation) dynamically via the luminiferous aether. Today, physicists are trying to account for the strangeness of quantum mechanics (e.g., quantum superposition and entanglement) dynamically via non-local, superdeterministic, or retro causal mechanisms without success. And, this morass has existed for decades (at least since the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper of 1935). So, Rovelli suggested we stop trying to *interpret* the quantum formalism and instead *derive it* from physical principles or postulates, just like Einstein gave up “constructive efforts” to understand the Lorentz transformations and instead derived them from the relativity principle and light postulate. This is the program that has recently come to fruition in quite a surprising fashion.
This new understanding of quantum mechanics comes from its reconstruction via information-theoretic principles. It’s true that these information-theoretic principles are rather abstract, but they have straightforward physical consequences that render quantum mechanics a “principle theory” exactly like special relativity (to use Einstein’s terminology). Let me explain.
According to Einstein, a principle theory is a theory whose formalism follows from an empirically discovered fact. The formalism of special relativity, i.e., the Lorentz transformations, follows from the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions (called the light postulate). This can be justified by the relativity principle, i.e., the laws of physics (to include their constants of Nature) are the same in all inertial reference frames. That’s because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and inertial reference frames are related by uniform relative motion (boosts). Accordingly, the strange aspects of special relativity, e.g., length contraction and time dilation, are not dynamical effects, but kinematic facts that follow from the observer-independence of c, as justified by the relativity principle.
Likewise, quantum information theorists have rendered quantum mechanics a principle theory by showing how its formalism (its finite-dimensional Hilbert space kinematics) follows from the empirically discovered fact called Information Invariance & Continuity. While that’s not as transparent as the light postulate, one can show that Information Invariance & Continuity entails everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations. Since h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law and inertial reference frames are related by spatial rotations and translations, the relativity principle justifies the observer-independence of h exactly as it justifies the light postulate. Accordingly, the strange aspects of quantum mechanics, e.g., quantum superposition and entanglement, are not dynamical effects, but kinematic facts that follow from the observer-independence of h, as justified by the relativity principle.
So, if you believe we have a “clear account” of what special relativity is postulating, then we now have a “clear account” of what quantum mechanics is postulating. You can read all about this new understanding of quantum mechanics in "Einstein's Entanglement: Bell Inequalities, Relativity, and the Qubit" (Oxford UP 2024).
Subscribed 🎉
Perhaps there could be an Ontology of QM if we understand Classical Physics as a look into the observable and ordered Past, while Quantum Mechanics is a peek into the Future, hence the Uncreated Light of Infinity.
Fantastic.
Excellent discussion. The wave function collapse: Is a mouse conscious enough to collapse the wave function? I think dogs can collapse wave functions, but mice can't.
I tried to listen to this episode to help me fall asleep, it failed miserably as it was far too interesting and kept me awake for hours instead.
Insomnia sucks, tomorrow I will be back to lectures in macro economics again - that works much better.
I can relate!
The questioner's comments at the end indicate that he did not understand quite how defective physicists' treatment of QM really was and is. Otherwise, he would not have despaired of the task of finalizing the theory and would not have positioned the problem as a battle of intuitions. If the standard recipe is indeed just a recipe, i.e. only a partial scientific product, that is the problem with it, and not any supposed clash with our supposed intuitions (Generally, I do not think that we have anything like intuitions, only acquired habits of thought.)
If you rotate and stretch a drawing in the plane, that is an imaginary number.
Wonderful perspective of "Measurement"... _/\_. Om. Consciousness...
The Seer, the Seeing and the Seen .. In Consciousness it is considered One n the Same... One Whole.
It should be said that you only get those three options (pilot , collapse, MW) if you want to assume that the wave function is real.
Furthermore, in the first two the wave function has non - local dynamics. So if you want a real theory that isn’t non-local you only have MWI. But actually MWI doesn’t even require the wave function to be real.
You could also take the view that there isn’t any physical wave function. Treat the wave function philosophically like a probability of possible realities but note the wave function doesn’t need to exist in any of those realities. Then you can have other interpretations, decoherent histories for example. I view decoherent histories as the best elucidation of the copenhagen interpretation. Essentially, dechoherence explains why we only see classical outcomes (the coherences disappear by interactions with the environment), and it’s philosophically similar to copenhagen because the observer determines which outcome from the possibilities when they make a measurement. Note you can also arrive at a MWI from this non-real view of the wave function simply by assuming that the observer doesn’t determine a single outcome but is decohered into multiple versions in each decoherent history. Ocam’s razor however compels one to assume the singular world since the others are never observed.
So I consider myself a MWI agnostic who subscribes to the copenhagen interpretation implemented by decoherence.
I wonder the distance between the two slits? I mean if you had one slit behind the electron emitter, surely no waveform would occur. Now extrapolate bringing the two slits ever so slightly closer together. BTW I'm completely agnostic to the point that I would accept the world just the way it is without the crutch of any logical theory.
The relational interpretation and the contextual realist interpretation are both local realist interpretations that point out that you can do quantum mechanics without the wave function just using Heisenberg's matrices, so you don't actually have to assign metaphysical reality to the wave function since it's not even necessary in the theory. The wave function is only real in the sense that it can be used as a tool to make predictions but is not an _entity._ For some reason, Maudlin always dismisses these kinds of philosophical interpretations as not even worth consideration.
pilot wave theories are not lorentz invariant, which begs the question why consider them at all when the universe we live in shows no signs of lortenz violations.
The problem is there doesn't seem to be an ontology that goes with quantum mechanics.
Indeed. This is the central point in Tim's book on quantum theory, which is worth reading if you haven't yet
There could be an Ontology if we understand Classical Physics as a look into the observable and ordered Past, while Quantum Mechanics is a peek into the Future, hence the Uncreated Light of Infinity.
Another great interview. Any chance you can interview David Deutsch in the near future?
Absolutely. I'd love to do this in person next time I'm in Oxford rather than remotely from Sydney. Hopefully a 2024 thing
Any insight as to why Maudlin seemed to have some animosity towards Deutsch? I thought he was not very respectful. Fine to disagree with him, but no need for him to have displayed condescension.
Another suggestion for an interview especially since he is in Sydney as well is Brett Hall. Any thoughts?
Good suggestion, I'd not considered Brett, but yes let me have a chat with him and see
@@benfmd No special insight I'm afraid. Part of it is probably just Tim's style but I won't speculate further than that
Why is this question not asked about water waves? Isnt water made of particles yet behaves like waves??
I think that it's not a interference pattern it's behaving like gravitational lensing
Classical waves create interference pattern at one instant in time. But the pattern of electron dots going through two slits forms interference pattern over a period of time. And this extended period can be even million days if we send one electron at a time with a gap of 1 day between million such electrons. Therefore, analogy does not hold. And it does not mean that each electron is a wave as well. It can be said that these electrons are riding a standing, abstract wave that guides their paths. Bohmian QM assumes these pilot waves as entities separate from the particles it guides. Thus, I do not understand why the Double Slit Electron experiment is supposed to prove that an individual electron is a wave. The correct way to say (IMO) is a collection of electron rides an abstract wave that is standing there.
That's what I'm coming to understand, It seems all physics is particles and forces
Or the electron has infinite length, goes out one end of the universe and comes back around the other side and interferes with itself. Quite possible. Then again, Occam's Razor dumbs us down.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk many worlds makes perfect sense because we don't usually count that high with our feeble brains. Imagine a 10 km by 10 km by 10 km block of granite. Now, every 10,000 years an eternal dove flies by it and brushes its wings against the rock. How many years before the rock is dust? God knows, but we may guess never or 832938^283883828^282190299^882866 years which may be too small. Now imagine having eternity to create this universe. that number would be a peanut of years. The rock will wear away, guaranteed.
The integral of the wave function is reasonable. It has already settled for an outcome by beting on all horses.
I have just seen Magee call Bernardo Kastrup ' silly ' on another channel.! Get Bernardo on 🙂✌️
How might one consider...the philosophy of philosophy?
What a tangled web we weave!
Divine Revelation, the end of human philosophy.
That's just Hegelanism and Marxism. Both Hegel and Marx tried to develop a philosophy that could explain philosophies, and thus could give an account to itself, one from an idealist lens (absolute idealism) and the other from a materialist lens (historical materialism).
@47:23 - "The irony here is people call the pilot wave theory a "hidden variable theory" but it's really, as Bell again pointed out, it's the wave function of the quantum state that's hidden..."
Not to dispute what Maudlin points out here, but in pilot wave theory, there is a distinction between the measured and actual positions of a subatomic particle. The particle's measured location is a probabilistic projection of the wave function into 3D space according to Born's Rule, which both Copenhagen and Bohmian interpretations predict in the same manner. In addition, pilot wave theory provides an explicit calculation of the particle's actual trajectory, based deterministically on its initial state, a concept foreign to the Copenhagen interpretation. It is the actual location of the particle in 3D space which is deemed a hidden variable, as it cannot be experimentally confirmed.
As for MWI, it postulates a mulitplicity of mutually inaccessible 3D "worlds", each of whose measured results correspond to one of the potential particle locations predicted by Born's Rule. What's questionable about this concept is that there's no meaningful way to interpret the Born probability of the results observed in any particular world. What's even more problematic is that in cases like this, where Born's Rule produces a continuous range of results (rather than a limited number of discrete possibilities), MWI would split the universe into a near-infinite multiplicity of worlds (limited in divisibility only by Planck's constant), each time a measuremt is made.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk - Ironically enough, Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" criticism of pilot wave theory was recently proven wrong by Nobel Prize-winning experiments that confirmed, via Bell's Theorem, that the universe does indeed exhibit non-local quantum phenomena. These results vindicate non-local hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as pilot wave theory. Since pilot wave theory does accurately predict the spin behavior of entangled particles consistent with quantum mechanics, it is your glib criticism that appears rather cheap.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk - Perhaps you're thinking of this quote, in a letter from Einstein to Born:
“Have you heard that Bohm believes (as de Broglie did, by the way, 25 years ago) that he is able to interpret the quantum theory in deterministic terms? That way seems too cheap to me”.
This relates to the distinction I pointed out in my original post above, between the deterministic Bohmian trajectory of a particle versus the probabilistic Born Rule distribution of measured particle locations. I'm not sure whether Einstein laid out in more detail what he considered "cheap" about it, as Bohm's interpretation is widely acknowleded to accurately reproduce the same results as conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk - Whether the quantum wave function exists in some aspect of reality or is merely a mathematical tool that accurately predicts observed quantum behavior, it clearly does influence the movements of subatomic particles in physical spacetime. At minimum, the interference patterns that are seen in double-slit experiments are produced not by interactions of wavefronts in physical space, but by the complex-valued mathematics of wave function superpositions in Configuration Space. In Bohmian terms, that means pilot waves cannot be propagating in physical spacetime (where they'd be limited to the speed of light), the effect pilot waves have on subatomic particles must be manifest in Configuration Space. As it turns out, that complex-valued domain of unlimited dimensions provides the perfect environment for the deterministic, non-local behavior of entangled particles in Bell's Theorem. Consequently, the quantum wave function must exist, at least on some underlying operational level, from which the observed locations of subatomic particles are probabilistically projected into physical spacetime in accordance with Born's Rule.
An important point here in the double slit experiment is they say they shot one photon at a time through the slits. How is that possible?
Lasers exist that can produce one photon at a time.
@@amihart9269 no they do not.
@@rl7012 do you also think the moon landing was faked and vaccines contain microchips?
@@rl7012 do you also think the moon landing was faked and vaccines contain microchips?
@@rl7012 do you also think the moon landing was faked and vaccines contain microchips ?
Today’s it seems there’s almost a rock star ideology of Richard Feynman; I see folks take quotes of his and look for “profound meaning” when in fact, sometimes he was just “being a troll” before that became the definition everyone uses for delivery of a snarky comment. The guy who “faked” breaking into safes at Los Almos to screw with other genius heads, that’s part of what’s endearing about Feynman. He was kind of a goof ball at times, just smarter than 99.9999 % of anyone ever born.
I like Feynman. When asked to explain magnetism, he said he couldn't because there's nothing to compare it to that you would understand in a common sense way.
Also he "died young" which is total rock star
Relatively young
Excellent all around.
Before it was called physics, it was physical philosophy. It became mathematical physics, which is what it is now, abbreviated physics.
Science is formed by both criticism and solutions. The former is easy, while the later is difficult. Unfortunately, the speaker does not provide the later.
Curving in the slit
Physicists are after the laws of nature, philosophers & theologians translate it to human understanding, mysticism is about experience of self and reality itself. Happiness, sadness, ecstasy, depression, pleasure heaven and hell. The storyteller should show the 3-gifts..
In my understanding, the hostility towards philosophy from physics was grounded way before quantum mechanics. The debate began during the enlightenment, inspired by the successes of Newton's mathematical formulations and peaked around 1800 after Immanuel Kant's Metaphysical foundations of Natural Science reignited in particular German thinkers. Eventually, it was resolved/died out when German Romantic Natural Philosophers by mid 19th century had not been able to construct physics theories from dynamicism. Since then, physicists have largely undisputed believed physics was free from philosophy and have contributed its successes to keeping a distance to philosophy. Kant, however, pointed out that physics is philosophy, essentially a mathematical formulation of metaphysics, as a-priories like time, mass, force and so on are empirically unfalsifiable. In my humble opinion, I believe Kant was right, and to me, the strength of physics is not that it is not philosophical of nature, but rather that it speaks the language of measuring apparatuses: numbers.
Long Live Dan Winter ! 🫅
I don't get why physicists, even Maudlin does this, takes a grand multiverse seriously as if that is a legitimate proposal, but when it's pointed out you can solve all the "weirdness" in quantum mechanics just by presuming quantum mechanics is dependent upon reference frame, people act like that off the wall absurd mysticism. Maudlin doesn't even consider it worthy of discussion. We are already used to reference frames from general relativity, so why is it so absurd to extend it to more properties of particles? Yet somehow a grand multiverse is not absurd.
Timestamps!
Done!
@@MatthewGeleta Your chapters are visible only in the video description; they don't show up along the timeline of the video.
I think this is easily fixed so that youtube automatically adds the chapters to the video timeline: just make sure that the first timestamp is 00:00
Source: ua-cam.com/video/b1Fo_M_tj6w/v-deo.html
@@G_Doggy_Jr thanks - done!
"Timestamps" *Timstamps :)
^ this deserves some love.
The disdain among physicists / scientists for philosophy...is, unfortunately, nothing more (and nothing less) than simple insecurity. Philosopher's area of expertise is thinking...and thinking about thinking...and scientists in general never like to admit that there is someone who could possibly have a better grasp of an issue relevant to their field...than they themselves do. IOW...the idea that thinking itself can be an area of expertise is often simply regarded with suspicion. It's obviously a ridiculous response...but very often human nature precedes professional activity.
No...I'm not 'wrong'. I spent years and years and years on a huge international chat forum that included numerous science geeks and actual practicing scientists. The level of hate directed at philosophers was constantly off-the-charts...and THAT was the ONLY reason. Their arguments were very often absolutely pathetic...with the metaphysical sophistication of a tadpole...and it was blindingly easy to run semantic rings around the vast majority of them (which typically went right over their heads). To put it very simply...these were often VERY intelligent people...but they did NOT like to have to face the simple fact that there was something as basic as their own thinking that they did not sufficiently comprehend. That...is...it! And it's most indisputably NOT just academic. Philosophy imparts VERY real skills that have VERY real applications across the entire length and breadth of human activity...ESPECIALLY those activities that require nuance, complex problem solving, unconventional thinking, cognitive gymnastics, etc. etc.(you need look no further than the massive field of computer science...especially AI and neural networks...to get a good idea just how essential philosophy is to successful engagement). Thinking is one of the most fundamental activities that human beings engage in. To pretend (as so many did on that forum...practicing scientists included) that the explicit study of that very activity has no utility is blindingly idiotic! @@BobbyT-ov3rk
@@BobbyT-ov3rk There are holes in your argument big enough to drive a universe through. Someday you may find someone who will waste their time explaining them to you . This is not that day.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk ...except I'm not a philosopher. I'm an engineer. I'm also intelligent enough to realize that the foundation of engineering is intelligence. And the foundation of intelligence is coherent meaning...not a single detail of which any capable engineer can even begin to explain (any honest cognitive scientist will admit that our comprehension of consciousness is essentially in the dark ages)(we cannot even begin to explain a single moment of human existence). The coherence of meaning (as any capable computer scientist or information theorist will confirm) is a phenomena the existence of which strains the ability of even the most sophisticated ...you guessed it...philosopher. You really do need to get caught up on the science of meaning (there is one...in case you have ever taken two seconds to wonder how you comprehend a single moment of your own existence)...cause it's precisely in that area (as well as the foundations of physics) where philosophy is most aggressively asserting itself (among a multitude of other major and minor disciplines).
@@BobbyT-ov3rk Like I said...coherent meaning. Let me know when you encounter some.
I have been reduced to thinking ONLY geometrically, because there are no experiments that can prove ANY physical theory. It seems physics has become a long list of mathematical rules of thumb rather than any kind of visualizable definitions. Good on you if you're good at memorizing lists and plots, but to actually "understand" will go by the wayside when you shut up and calculate.
criticism of philosophy of science is part of philosophy too
Physics came out of philosophy.
It is interesting that Tim noted the importance of discussing observations in particle physics and quantum mechanics in drawing correct conclusions in philosophy of science. It is surprising to note that one of the most important "observations" in physics, Einstein's theories of relativity, are not foundational to these conclusions. No matter how fast any one of us may be going, the speed of light is the always same. Shouldn't that tell us that Empty Space, not SM Particles, should be the central focus of philosophy of science. Over time, particles and dark matter will asymptote to 0% of the universe's makeup. Thus, the universe IS its Empty Space. From just after time zero (call it the hot Big Bang), the universe has been structured to make ONLY empty space. At every point along the way, another step in the structuring of the universe to make the Quantum Vacuum of Empty Space has been achieved. Six Billion years ago that Factory paradigm was completed.
@@schmetterling4477 ah, perturbations in the quantum foam. So the quantum foam perturbs itself into making more quantum foam. I like it.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk philosophy is the study of the meaning of questions. That's it.
@@BobbyT-ov3rk yes, the universe is structured to make empty space. Central focus it should be.
i refer to the astrophysics version of empty space: quantum vacuum, spacetime, quantum foam, cosmological constant, virtual particles, fabric of space, aether, dark energy, the list of names for empty space goes on and on depending on who you're reading at the time. It is the one thing the universe has been making since the big bang. Everything else has just been "sloshing around", and the structure that arises makes more empty space, I mean dark energy, whatever. @@BobbyT-ov3rk
@@BobbyT-ov3rk the meaning of questions business. Words are generally subject to personal interpretation. In science, that kinda sucks. Russell and Whitehead did their best to nail it down in "Principia Mathematica", then Whitehead ran off and showed to physics that process is just fine without the components required to make stuff happen. I get hammered daily for using "words" in physics conversations on FB.
Birds are more develop than humans 😂
Its fwild purtabatoins nothing else...their is no quantum
Fundamentalist Christianity misses the point. So does fundamentalist quantum mechanics.
Feynman is totally overated. Maudlin just checkmated him.
Feynman was brilliant with the physics but when it came to the philosophy wasn't particularly great.
Science is formed by both criticism and solutions. The former is easy, while the later is difficult. Unfortunately, the speaker does not provide the later.