Why Even Physicists Still Don't Understand Quantum Theory 100 Years On (nature.com) 132
A century after quantum mechanics revolutionized physics, scientists still cannot agree on how the theory fundamentally works, despite its tremendous success in explaining natural phenomena and enabling modern technologies. The theory's central puzzle remains unresolved: the way quantum systems are described mathematically differs from what scientists observe when measuring them.
This has led to competing interpretations about whether quantum states represent physical reality or are merely tools for calculating probabilities. As researchers debate these foundational questions, quantum mechanics has enabled breakthroughs in particle physics, chemistry, and computing. It accurately predicts phenomena from the behavior of atoms to the properties of the Higgs boson, and underlies technologies like quantum computers and ultra-precise measurement devices. The field's inability to reach consensus on its foundations hasn't hindered its practical applications. Scientists continue to develop new quantum technologies even as they grapple with deep questions about measurement, locality, and the nature of reality that have persisted since Einstein and Bohr's famous debates in the 1920s and 1930s.
This has led to competing interpretations about whether quantum states represent physical reality or are merely tools for calculating probabilities. As researchers debate these foundational questions, quantum mechanics has enabled breakthroughs in particle physics, chemistry, and computing. It accurately predicts phenomena from the behavior of atoms to the properties of the Higgs boson, and underlies technologies like quantum computers and ultra-precise measurement devices. The field's inability to reach consensus on its foundations hasn't hindered its practical applications. Scientists continue to develop new quantum technologies even as they grapple with deep questions about measurement, locality, and the nature of reality that have persisted since Einstein and Bohr's famous debates in the 1920s and 1930s.
Because we have too many theories (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason we don't understand it is simple: we have lots of theories that all make identical or almost identical predictions. (We call those theories "interpretations" of quantum mechanics.) Since they all explain the data equally well, we don't know which one is right. That doesn't stop lots of people from forming religious beliefs that one interpretation is obviously the right one.
That's also why it doesn't stop us from solving practical problems. Since all the interpretations are equally good at predicting experiments, you can pick any one you want, and they all do a great job.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interpretations play no part in predicting experimental outcomes, which is what the theory itself does. Interpretations are just ways of trying to understand it - trying to understand the relationship between the strangeness of quantum behavior and the classical world that we are familiar with.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't stop lots of people from forming religious beliefs that one interpretation is obviously the right one.
Indeed. Or from claiming we know "everything". Which is very obviously not the case, we are obviously missing some very fundamental things. Making predictions, even with a known incomplete and flawed theory is still ok to do. But one must never forget they are predictions, not statements of truth, and must be verified against actual reality before they get validity. In a sense, predictions from theory only tell you what you should probably try in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
We have one theory that makes very good predictions. We have a bunch of stories we tell ourselves about it and call these "interpretations."
The interpretations are stories, not theories. They don't make predictions, they're attempts we've made to use analogies to explain the predictions. There are several perfectly good interpretations too, we just don't like the implications.
Re: (Score:2)
Quantum mechanics is easy to understand. All you have to do is understand photons and go from there, lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Quantum mechanics is easy to understand. All you have to do is understand photons and go from there, lol.
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. -- Richard Feynman
if you think you understand (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't, apparently so they're stuck in an understanding loop.
I like to believe this means the more we understand about it, the more complex reality actually becomes thus you don’t. We need to stop now while we are ahead. /s
Re: if you think you understand (Score:2)
Hawking wrote a book about this. It's called model dependent reality or M-theory.
Gauge waves might be the explanation. (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently finished an article, which suggest gauge waves as a possible explanation
underlying quantum mechanics, gravity and dark energy.
See https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
I also suggest a gauge wave detector called a quantum lens, to experimental verify the predictions.
I am currently looking for funding and a team to build the detector.
Re : the headline (Score:2)
Quantum theories are understood; quantum mechanics is not.
Re: (Score:2)
But as pointed out in the body of the summary, not all of the models (theories) agree with each other, and none of them seems to agree exactly with all of the observations of quantum mechanics at work.
The model interpretation differences, for any practical difference able to be measured today or dug for in todays data, are nonexistent. That’s the problem, there is no way today, in some cases no conceivable way for the foreseeable future, to tell the difference between interpretation method and actual data. No experiment can be done so it limits understanding, at least until technology can catch up or some fundamental breakthrough in understanding comes along which is unlikely given the lack of da
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But as pointed out in the body of the summary, not all of the models (theories) agree with each other, and none of them seems to agree exactly with all of the observations of quantum mechanics at work.
The model interpretation differences, for any practical difference able to be measured today or dug for in todays data, are nonexistent. That’s the problem, there is no way today, in some cases no conceivable way for the foreseeable future, to tell the difference between interpretation method and actual data. No experiment can be done so it limits understanding, at least until technology can catch up or some fundamental breakthrough in understanding comes along which is unlikely given the lack of data. Small irregularities are sought after as the way to cement new physics understanding even if it’s just minute incremental understanding. We may need to move on to expanding gravitational astronomy frequencies to detect more types of phenomena with lower and higher wavelengths than the gravitational waves to get some clues but it’s looking like we are hitting a wall in fundamental theory. We will likely make future gains in software and modeling instead, kind of how we don’t need to understand physics itself better to really understand how humans work or animals or life works on a physical level. Knowing a slightly more accurate interpretation won’t improve protein folding, but better more powerful computing approaches will.
tl;dr If we lived in a world where Sophons were real, it would look exactly like the one we live in. We are bugs.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually is both. The theory is complex enough to not be fully understood in its implications and physical reality (and not only quantum mechanics) is not fully understood either. There is the missing quantum-gravity, for example, but there are also things like consciousness (which supposedly all humans have and some animals as well) and general intelligence (which some humans have, but apparently not that many). Incidentally, we do not understand life itself either at this time. It looks like life may b
Re: (Score:2)
So far, it hasn't done all those things at the same time,
Even the string theorists are finding it difficult to come up with those things, and they pretty much have the mathematics equivalent of an Anything Printer.
Finding the Higgs didnt make this better.
Probably going to find out we got sub-atomics all wrong, that we arent observing fundamental particles after all when "interactions" happen, that its literally just the in
I can't recall who... (Score:2)
But I recall one physicist basically saying of all the "explanations" and "interpretations" that he was just there to give working math models, not delve into the more essentially philosophical matters of what the "meaning" behind the math was.
We see weird stuff at the edges of our ability to experiment and observe and we can to some extent model that weird stuff with math, but ultimately the weirdness drives us to want more satisfying understanding than just predicting behavior with math. Whether that's so
Re: (Score:3)
But I recall one physicist basically saying of all the "explanations" and "interpretations" that he was just there to give working math models, not delve into the more essentially philosophical matters of what the "meaning" behind the math was.
This is the "shut up and calculate! [nature.com]" approach. I got to this article via a discussion [stackexchange.com] of who came up with the phrase. [Apparently it was the co-author of my favorite solid state textbook, rather than the co-author of my three favorite physics books]
Re: (Score:2)
That is pretty accurate. "Meaning" is pretty dangerous because it is subject to wishful thinking. Also with meaning come questions like consciousness and general intelligence and life itself, for which Physics has no answers. Most physicists do understand that and understand that their theory is likely fundamentally incomplete. But since they are interested in the theory, they work on that, because that is the only scientifically valid approach at this time. The real problem is that the press (and sometimes
So after 100 years (Score:3)
is the cat still in the box?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody knows. That is the point. The problem is that many people cannot deal with uncertainty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Nice try, but needs a bit of work.
Re:After 100 years, cat still in box? (Score:4, Funny)
Schrodinger's Haitian relatives may have eaten it, although the troll wave function has yet to collapse due to spooky action at Mar-a-Lago.
Math (Score:2)
Math is used to calculate a solution. I don't believe the physical nature of the universe applies to our ideas of calculating solutions. It might be that everything in the universe is actually connected so trying to define individual systems at the quantum level is pointless and unobtainable. Fascinating to think about though.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be that everything in the universe is actually connected
Reminds me of the One Electron Theory [wikipedia.org]
I think the universe is probably mathematically sound. But the margin of error with the equipment we have far outweighs the minor differences between the mathematical models we have. We are currently out of technological means to verify any theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, I've never stumbled across that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the universe is probably mathematically sound.
It cannot actually be. Only mathematical statements can be mathematically sound. But mathematical statement never apply to reality except by an intermediate interpretation step and that always loses precision and that loss is never zero and can be arbitrary large.
Because theory (which essentially all boils down to mathematics, ultimately) is so hugely useful, some people start to forget what it is and mistake it for what it is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Possibly. We have very good calculations and very good solutions in mist cases were we apply that approach. But, so far, they always failed when we applied them to extreme circumstances. We see that with energy, speed, size and maybe see it with complexity (via QCs) in the future. Hence whatever we have is restricted to limited circumstances. Still exceptionally useful, but not a means to make fundamental claims.
Incidentally, while everything may be connected and everything influences everything (an idea th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe the physical nature of the universe applies to our ideas of calculating solutions.
I don't understand how you can say that. Scientists and engineers make a living doing what you believe is inapplicable. And they have demonstrated tremendous success at it.
Or perhaps it's better said the other way around: our ideas of calculating solutions can in fact be applied to the physical nature of the universe with great success.
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, but some are useful. It's remarkable that any models work as well as they do, but as long as they do work, let's keep using them.
No shit (Score:2)
Ultimately every theory of physics can be ”how, why” its way to the question “how and why does anything exist?” .. and if we knew THAT we wouldn’t need to know anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an example to clarify my point .. You see a candle burning .. and you ask how, why .. then the answer is well there's is fuel and oxygen and heat .. the heat causes the combustion reaction .. well how, why does that happen .. well because of the molecular interaction .. how does that happen? Well because of the structure of its constituent atoms and the configuration of electrons. Well why does it have that structure .. then we can go to the arrangement of the protons and neutrons .. and for why tha
Re: (Score:2)
It is even worse: We do not actually know that physical reality exists. It is a useful model only. But the only thing we have are rather indirect and subjective observations. This gives raise to pretty stupid models like "we live in a simulation" (which is just a camouflaged religious idea), but the uncertainty such ideas exploit is real. And we have managed in modern Science to push the subjectivity wayyyy down when some approaches are used and make Science and Engineering (which is derived from Science) v
My amateur take: its a problem of obersvability (Score:2, Interesting)
We only have so many ways to measure what is happening at the subatomic level, so we have to infer relationships using a toolbox with a limited resolution, so to say. Granted, what we have determined so far is really impressive, but we may really need a new method or two to extract the actual mechanics of the system. It also doesn't help that the particles themselves act in ways that make it hard to capture their real state. Think of it as only being able to see a three dimensional system in two dimensio
Re: (Score:2)
You are certainly correct that long chains of assumptions are used in all of these observations. These assumptions are typically experimentally verified very well, but that can do only so much. Experiments do not give you truth, only indicators. While unlikely, it is quite possible that some even more visible effects have been overlooked or misattributed as a result.
the math and the observations do not differ at all (Score:4, Informative)
"The theory's central puzzle remains unresolved: the way quantum systems are described mathematically differs from what scientists observe when measuring them."
Someone is saying something wrong. Calculations of quantum system agree very well with measurements of quantum systems, otherwise we wouldn't use the calculations - and we do. The agreement between theory and experiment is tested to absolutely ridiculous levels of accuracy - like to ten (or more) digits.
We may not be all in agreement of what the model MEANS about how the universe works, and we may feel that it is crazy that things behave both like particles and waves which seems like it should be a contradiction, but things really are measured as behaving just like the mathematical model predicts. That certainly isn't an "unsolved central puzzle."
Re: (Score:2)
This needs modding up.
We can detect that the proton has structure because we can measure the orbit of the electron in a hydrogen atom accurately enough to tell that it doesn't orbit according to the two body problem (which we can solve mathematically to any desired accuracy - this is undergraduate level QM).
As of today, we have no evidence at all that the electron has structure. But if the electron genuinely is a point source then there are all sorts of mathematical problems trying to describe it, and if it
Re: (Score:2)
You hit upon the central issue with reductionism, in this area at least. When one has a complicated system, one alwasy wants to try to describe in terms of the simpler/smaller/low-level components/systems that its made of.
What's that table made of? Wood.
What's the wood made of? Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
What are the atoms made of? Electrons and nucleons.
What are the nucleons made of? Quarks.
And so on...
At some point with this line of reasoning your going to run into a logical unsatisfying end point
Not Me! (Score:3)
I am not a quantum field I am a free man! (Score:2)
Quantum theory contains two facts that are intolerable to most physicists. First, the observer is itself a quantum object. Most physicists insist on dealing with observers in classical terms despite knowing that this is false. A few insightful researchers addressed this issue head on, notably Sidney Coleman in his 1994 Dirac lecture âoeQuantum mechanics in your faceâ.
Second, that QM is not a fundamental theory. The actual fundamental theory is quantum field theory, where particles are a derive
Re: (Score:2)
Quibble with your characterization of QM as not a fundamental theory. It's a non-relativistic approximation of QFT. We know it's an approximation because it makes good predictions for non-relativistic phenomena, and bad ones for relativistic ones.
QFT, at least the specific one called the standard model, itself isn't a complete physical theory because it doesn't describe gravity. You can extend QFT/SM to include quantum gravity but it blows up around the Planck energy so we're pretty sure it is itself an app
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't QFT as unsatisfying as anything else, at least ontologically?
I agree it is more fundamental if you're a physicist. But in order to make sense of it on a physical level one has to accept as an unproven given the existence of undetectable fields that permiate throughout all known space. These fields must have some kind of reality (if claiming QFT to have some fundamental significance above and beyond just being a useful mathematical model), but we have no direct evidence for them or any explanation as t
Anything reliant on "the observer" has issues (Score:2)
Some of the issues involve the attempts to map quantum scenarios onto the effects of the conscious mind, or even onto what is referred to as 'the observer' even if this is say, a measuring system.
I have a problem with at least the term 'observer'. It implies something special beyond simple interaction, that there's some kind of observation to be made, as opposed to the effect simply manifesting based on the probability.
The Schroedinger's Cat scenario was right as far as Schoedinger's scorn for the scenario
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there's no reason to stop there, and it leads to more absurdity.
When you, the obsever, open the box, you then enter into a superposition state with the box of ObservedDeadCatInsideBox|ObservedLiveCatInsideBox. If you report your findings then your report, and anyone who reads it, also enter a larger superposition state of KnowsAboutTheObserverationofDeadCat|KnowsAboutTheObservationofLiveCat (or maybe a larger three way superposition that also includes Doesn'tKnowAboutThe CatObservation).
This then
Nature Magazine resorts to click bait (Score:2)
Classical mechanics is also bizarre (Score:2)
quotes are from the article:
Whereas in classical physics, a particle such as an electron has a real, objective position and momentum at any given moment
What is a particle in classical mechanics? An object with an exact location, zero volume, and therefore infinite density? Does this match what we experience in real-life? What is an object? A discontinuous distribution of matter in space, with an exact surface that separates matter from empty space? Those are obviously i
Re: (Score:2)
They can't actually, depending on what you mean by "objective". You can measure position or momentum more or less precisely but you can never know either to infinite precision. The uncertainty principle doesn't allow it, and there are nice concrete mechanisms that prevent it.
This is a deeper truth though. The uncertainty principle applies to any quantity and its derivative. It's also a bizarre thing to claim is quantum weirdness because it's an ordinar
Quanta (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:2)
Invent maths.
Apply maths to basic physics.
Come up with Newtonian equations.
Discover that the maths helps you predict the physics.
Apply more maths to more complex physics.
Come up with some partial differential equations.
Try to solve the p.d.e.'s.
Come up with seemingly nonsense answers that only work in X dimensions or have stupendously irrational answers or which imply all kinds of seemingly unbelievable nonsense.
Argue over for it 100 years.
Discover that the maths is still correct.
Look out at the universe an
Re:Like the laws of motion (Score:4, Informative)
That's the opposite process! Newton put paid to the questions rather than the other way around.
Re:Like the laws of motion (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, our brains evolved to understand the high-level phenomena that occur when uncountable numbers of atoms combine to form predatory animals. We are really good at understanding everything that hunter-gatherors need to understand. Unfortunately, the key principles at work in such an environment are all emergent phenomenon. The root causes work very differently.
It is possible that our brains are simply ill-equipped to ever truly grasp the foundational aspects of physical reality. They may simply be too different from what we would consider "ordinary life" for us to get our heads around them. Of course, that is no reason to stop trying.
But we DO live in a world where scientists still argue about things like whether numbers are real things with an independent existence of their own, or an imaginary tool our mind uses to understand real things. If we can't figure out something that basic, then we don't have a prayer of coming to agreement on the much more mysterious and complex observations of quantum physics.
Re: (Score:2)
gweihir: "That is complete nonsense. No competent scientist would argue that numbers are elements of physical reality. They are a purely mental concept that requires _abstraction_"
jonadab: "Mathematicians don't have to argue about that. There are some arguments about whether certain specific *classes* of numbers are fundamental properties of the universe or, or made-up concepts (e.g., infinitesima
Re: (Score:2)
We tend to use the term "physical" to mean stuff that exists in the real world in some fashion. Thus arguing about whether numbers are "physical."
That's not what philosophers mean. All math is "physical" in the physicalism sense. Non-physicalists assert that there is something else beyond everything that is conceivable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, our brains evolved to understand the high-level phenomena that occur
Our brains evolved to model reality. That's why they work well in novel situations we've never been exposed to in evolutionary scales. It's why we dominated all other forms of life, and then some, and have the capacity to turn around and say oh shit.
The strategies and methods a person uses to fill in the gaps in the model is their prerogative, but we are 100% built for modeling reality.
It is possible that our brains are simply ill-equipped to ever truly grasp the foundational aspects of physical reality. They may simply be too different from what we would consider "ordinary life" for us to get our heads around them. Of course, that is no reason to stop trying.
It's kind of like the concept of Turing Completeness, your brain and the universe are Turing equivalent. You can always do
Re: (Score:2)
Has somebody ever told you that Physicalism is belief and that you are giving pure speculation when you limit the human mind to the brain? In fact, there quite a few indicators that this is a faulty model, like consciousness (there is no mechanism for it in known Physics) and general intelligence (which may well also be impossible with known Physics)?
We have no reliable definition for consciousness. Until we do, any attempt to explain how it works is premature. This is not a weakness of physics.
General intelligence is a little better defined but I think society will still refine the term as technology advances to insure that no machine has it.
Re: (Score:2)
We have no reliable definition for consciousness. Until we do, any attempt to explain how it works is premature. This is not a weakness of physics.
That is bullshit. Consciousness is real and hence no definition is needed. Incidentally there are quite a few descriptive definitions for it, just no Physical ones because this is one of the giant glaring holes in current Physics.
General intelligence is a little better defined but I think society will still refine the term as technology advances to insure that no machine has it.
Actually, it is not better described at all. Nobody knows what General Intelligence is. The only descriptions that exist for it are pure interface behaviors and the same is true for consciousness.
Re: (Score:2)
We have no reliable definition for consciousness. Until we do, any attempt to explain how it works is premature. This is not a weakness of physics.
That is bullshit. Consciousness is real and hence no definition is needed. Incidentally there are quite a few descriptive definitions for it, just no Physical ones because this is one of the giant glaring holes in current Physics.
And that, is why you fail. If you can't define what you mean in way that you be tested, then "it is real" is just navel gazing nonsense. If we had clearly described behaviour that physics could not explain that would be a problem with physics. But we don't. We have multiple definitions that all boil down to "ghost in the machine". In terms of actually described behaviour, we have incomplete descriptions of the actions of neurons then many many poorly understood when understood at all aggregations leadin
Re: (Score:3)
We have reliable definitions for consciousness.
The clinical definition of consciousness is something like:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov].
If you want to get more (rigorously) philosophical, a systems definition would be something like "a system cabable of
Re: (Score:2)
Normal human consciousness is defined as the presence of a wakeful arousal state and the awareness and motivation to respond to self and/or environmental events. In the intact brain, arousal is the overall level of responsiveness to environmental stimuli.
That just goes to show the brightest scholars still say some pretty dumb things. The only reasonable part of that definition is "awareness", and that word is doing a lot of work! Notably, this definition does not define consciousness in the absence of stimuli and does not recognize it if motivation is absent.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think there's consciousness in the absence of stimuli, or absent motivation?
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think there's consciousness in the absence of stimuli, or absent motivation?
First of all, that definition is a conditional definition. It doesn't define consciousness now, it defines consciousness in the condition of X. You might contend that perhaps consciousness doesn't exist now. Okay, but burden of proof would be on you. To answer your question more directly, thought seems to be self-perpetuating, and we can remove any individual stimulus (except chronic pain lol) and consciousness does not seem to substantially diminish. The clarity and depth of consciousness can be related to
Re: (Score:2)
In fact maybe conscious is discontinuous. It often feels that way during intense meditation. But I don't think we should take a position on that without significant evidence. That seems a long way off, since we don't even have rigorous evidence that consciousness exists.
Re: (Score:2)
"That definition," as I said, is a clinical one. The point is to define "consciousness" in a specifically usable form. I.e. "is the patient conscious?"
Why? You're the one making quite remarkable claims.
In fact, when we decrease external stimuli we notice a distinct decrease in any method we have of measuring consciousness, including subjective reports. The closest I can think of to actually removing exteral stimuli is freezing in liquid nitrogen. It doesn't remove s
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, that is a useful clarification! Though as a clinical definition, it's a useful rule of thumb rather than fact.
As I said, the burden of proof would be on you if you made the solipsistic argument that I'm not conscious at this moment. I won't deign to argue about it.
In fact, when we decrease external stimuli we notice a distinct decrease in any method we have of measuring consciousness
Except when it makes someone dissociate or pass out. In addition to the situations I already mentioned, strong emotions (which seem to increase consciousness) are not really caused by an increase in stimuli, but by certain types of concepts p
Re: (Score:2)
You argue that your consciousness is continuous, then ignore the awkward little fact of sleep.
I believe you're the one who suggested I "get drunk and learn philosophy" once. This is the thing about the majority of philosophy, particularly the older stuff: if you're drunk and/or high you can forget the annoying little details and just stand in awe of the intellectual construction. You seem to be very firmly of that school.
Re: (Score:2)
We have no reliable definition for consciousness. Until we do, any attempt to explain how it works is premature.
There has been a lot of progress on that problem, friend. Consciousness is the experiencing of (or knowing of, or even the existence of) qualia. Qualia are the things you perceive, and we haven't completely defined them, but we've made a lot of headway. They are private. They are impossible to communicate or share, except by referring to other qualia. They are are not in time; they are always now. They are your feelings. They are your seeing and sensing. Think back to waking up this morning: the sense of re
Re: (Score:3)
Has somebody ever told you that Physicalism is belief and that you are giving pure speculation when you limit the human mind to the brain? In fact, there quite a few indicators that this is a faulty model, like consciousness (there is no mechanism for it in known Physics) and general intelligence (which may well also be impossible with known Physics)?
This is arguing from ignorance. Remarks above are no different from dunno therefore could be aliens.
The only reason why some people argue is that they cannot deal with the idea that a human mind may be more than a purely physical thing, with respect to currently known Physics. That is what happens when you argue from belief, not Science.
Absent credible evidence of the same you should not expect anyone to care. There is an infinite field of possibilities anyone can dream up that likewise cannot be ruled out. Inability to prove a negative is not a valid reason for anyone to care.
You know, like the religious fuckups do with their bizarre ideas of how things work. Physicalism is really not much better. It essentially is a more sophisticated version of "intelligent design" where the "God" becomes implicit. Just as stupid though.
This is a specious and backwards statement. While it is not correct to assume there are no aliens the distinction is effectively moot so long as there remains no e
Re: (Score:2)
Odd that a non-physicalist would be arguing about how science, with a capital yet, works.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I deny Science? Physicalism is religion and belief, not Science at all. And Physicalism actually denies Science by making non-scientific claims as truth. At this time, all we know is that Physicalism is one of the countless options, but it is one that has some really bad holes in it. Pretty much on the same level as claims of "There is a God". Claiming Physicalism is Science is doing a massive disservice to Science and using belief as valid way to explain the world. That is not good at all. Yes, i
Re: (Score:2)
Physicalism is the foundation of science. It's the belief that reality consistently follows discoverable rules. That is one of the axioms of science.
Non-physicalism assumes that there is "something else" that does not follow rules. That's where the religion is, and calling it God is as good a name as any. Non-physicalism is just theism dressed up for when it's not cool or safe to call it that. Predicting weather? Don't bother, just sacrifice to Poseidon and hope for the best. Consciousness? Lol, it's clearl
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but your clueless posturing is just stupid. Do you have any clue how Science actually works? Because it sounds very much like you have not.
If you disagree with any of the points I made then make your case on the merits. I'm beyond tired of your constant shitting on people.
Re: (Score:2)
I have made a case. You chose to ignore it. I cannot fix that you are deeply stuck in your quasi-religion.
Re: (Score:2)
I have made a case. You chose to ignore it.
I did not ignore your case. I refuted it as an appeal to ignorance as outlined in my post. If you disagree with my remarks then refute them.
I cannot fix that you are deeply stuck in your quasi-religion.
As explicitly stated in my response "it is not correct to assume there are no aliens". I am not a physicalist. I neither deny the existence of aliens/magic nor do I presume aliens/magic do not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You claimed it was an argument from ignorance. It is not. And you did so without any proof or evidence or indicators (while I had two). Just a claim, nothing else.
You want to rectify that? Keep in mind that I have education and experience as a scientist, even if I am not very active at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You claimed it was an argument from ignorance. It is not. And you did so without any proof or evidence or indicators (while I had two). Just a claim, nothing else.
You just argued evidence for magic is humans not knowing how consciousness or general intelligence works. - "In fact, there quite a few indicators that this is a faulty model, like consciousness (there is no mechanism for it in known Physics) and general intelligence (which may well also be impossible with known Physics)?"
You have no clue how these things work yet you are nonetheless invoking the possibility of an explanation for which no objective evidence exists. This is no different than saying could be
Re: (Score:2)
No. I argued that we do not know how consciousness and general intelligence works and that currently known Physics does not deliver mechanisms or explanations. And that is the actual scientific state-of-the-art. It really does not. Sure, there is a lot of speculation, but it is just speculation and some of it is outright dumb, like "God in the Gapes" or "we live in a simulation". That is more wishful thinking than scientific speculation. I did not argue for any particular explanation, because at this time,
Re: (Score:2)
No. I argued that we do not know how consciousness and general intelligence works and that currently known Physics does not deliver mechanisms or explanations. And that is the actual scientific state-of-the-art.
Whether we get an extension of Physics, a particular surprising and unexpected (and so far overlooked) use of a known mechanism or something else (which at this time would be "magic", but then becomes Physics) is unclear.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is. As best as I can tell you seem to have admitted to not knowing how they work. Further you have admitted to not knowing whether or not they can be described within the constraints of currently observable reality.
I can understand if one knew how something worked and can point to the magic. I can understand if someone didn't know how something worked yet could point to some informational or physical constraint that necessitated some form of magic. As best as I can te
Re: (Score:2)
There is never such a thing as a complete and totally accurate model. All there ever can be is assumptions and experience.
Indeed. And that is why arguments by elimination do not work and cannot be used to get to the bottom of things. All they can do is give you rough ideas for things that then need to be verified with actual evidence.
But I see you are stuck at one particular point: You assume that "we do not know how consciousness works" is a claim to "magic". That you can only do if you assume (1) that consciousness is generated by the human brain and (2) that the human brain does it using possibilities described by currently
Re: (Score:2)
There is never such a thing as a complete and totally accurate model. All there ever can be is assumptions and experience. We all have finite knowledge, time, attention and resources. If someone doesn't have reason to believe it is impossible to emulate the brain nor do they have evidence of brain related magic it is wrong to believe their failure to consider magic somehow constitutes faulty reasoning.
Indeed.
Are you agreeing with the entire statement or only the first sentence? If just first sentence what fault in reasoning do you believe is being committed in the rest of the paragraph?
And that is why arguments by elimination do not work and cannot be used to get to the bottom of things.
Just because you can't eliminate something doesn't mean it is useful to care about it.
But I see you are stuck at one particular point: You assume that "we do not know how consciousness works" is a claim to "magic".
This is not my assumption. Not knowing is simply an expression of ignorance nothing more. There is not necessarily any nexus to "magic". In my statements "magic" refers to a hypothetical unknown thing that may be invoked to cover these thin
Re: (Score:3)
belief and that you are giving pure speculation when you limit the human mind to the brain?
There is no evidence of the existence of anything other than this reality and physical universe. Actually the evidence show rather that our consciousness is the brain. Accidents, surgeries, etc can fundamentally alter your consciousness and in fact completely change you and your personality. Chemicals such as drugs can do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is hard solid proof of individual existence, but there is no solid proof of the existence of the physical universe. Get the _basics_ right. You just completely failed.
Re: Like the laws of motion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken. I merely have not much patience anymore with people that follow the approach you describe. Color me unimpressed.
Incidentally, If I were thinking I waste my time here, I would simply leave. What I am doing is refining ideas and testing whether anybody can actually competently take them apart. So far, that has been a rare exception. I stay, because occasionally that happens and occasionally somebody actually contributes an angle I have not yet seen. But see the this thread, for example. Anyb
Re: (Score:2)
Combinatorist here
Re: (Score:2)
Combinatorist here ... even on the mathematics side of things, this is a deep pool and the bases of all math is a bunch of assumptions. Quantum mechanics really messes with those assumptions because maybe 1+1=2 OR maybe it also is 1+1=3.
No, quantum mechanics does not "mess" with the assumptions(*) of mathematics. Quite the contrary: quantum mechanics relies heavily on mathematics to calculate predictions. If suddenly 1+1 equaled 3, then you're not dealing with reality anymore, or at least with a number system that has any utility for quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics has presented challenges to physicists and mathematicians, causing new branches of mathematics to be developed (e.g., theory of Hilbert spaces and applications of group theo
Re: (Score:2)
Combinatorist here ... even on the mathematics side of things, this is a deep pool and the bases of all math is a bunch of assumptions.
That is being unfair to the axiomatic approach. First, it is clearly better defined and second, "assumption" typically means assumption about something outside of mathematics. And that is just plain wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not assumptions. Axioms come with no claim to validity in the real world. None at all. They may be called "assumptions" for convenience, but they really are not and the term is misleading.
Re: (Score:3)
No competent scientist would argue that numbers are elements of physical reality.
Oh it gets weirder than that. "Platonism" hold that numbers are "abstract objects" which means they don't have a physical existence but they nonetheless have a "real" existence that is completely independent of our thoughts about them. This is to say, even if no humans existed at all, and even if no conscious beings existed at all, numbers would still exist as real (but non-physical) things.
The belief known as "Mathematicism"
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting point. Since the Shrodinger Equation relies on the use of imaginary numbers (it's first term is "i") I've always assumed that it divides scientists into broadly two groups:
1. Those who think QM is only a model for calulating experimental outcomes, and that something deeper/more fundamental, etc is going on in reality.
2. Those who belive that QM is reality, and that other larger phenomena (e.g. newtonian mechanics) are just exmergent phenomona of this.
And I assume that group 1 thinks that
Re: (Score:2)
Has somebody ever told you that Physicalism is belief and that you are giving pure speculation when you limit the human mind to the brain? In fact, there quite a few indicators that this is a faulty model, like consciousness (there is no mechanism for it in known Physics) and general intelligence (which may well also be impossible with known Physics)?
But we DO live in a world where scientists still argue about things like whether numbers are real things with an independent existence of their own, or an imaginary tool our mind uses to understand real things.
That is complete nonsense. No competent scientist would argue that numbers are elements of physical reality.
Numbers can be real - in fact, more real than mutable physical reality - without being "elements of physical reality." In fact, that has always been the claim of mathematical realism.
Re: (Score:2)
That is meaningless sophistry. The choice was "real" as opposed to "imaginary" and that means part of physical reality. They are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
True. But Quantum Theory is used for deep predictions which are experimentally out of reach at this time (and maybe forever). That is a different application. Of course many people massively overestimate the worth of the theory and essentially mistake it for a GUT (a "theory of everything", which we very much do not have), because there are not only the problems described in the article, there are some fundamental holes (for example quantum-gravity, general intelligence which at least some humans can use, c
Re: Historical context (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Quantum mechanics, that is to say the math, predicts observations and measurements flawlessly. It has never once given an incorrect answer.
Quantum mechanics produces many results that are not correct on a macroscopic scale. We don't see superpositions, for example. Schrodinger's alive and dead cat is a classic thought experiment intended to illustrate the deficiencies in QM as a complete theory - not to imply that alive/dead cats are real.
And spinors, which you are describing are not even quantum! They are a characteristic of electrons, but have no "quantum leaps" in their states buried anywhere in their math. You might has well try to compar
Re: (Score:2)
not to imply that alive/dead cats are real.
Well, 9 times they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of the stuff that makes no sense is just made up. Your spinning the ball example, for instance. "Spin" isn't a ball spinning. The correct description isn't "spin a ball once and it only rotated 180 degrees," it's more like "advance this complex wave by pi/2 and the complex component is flipped" which is a perfectly reasonable thing to happen. And for spinors there actually is a perfectly reasonable geometric interpretation for the double cover, i.e. that there are two directions to go around a circle s
Re: (Score:2)
No AI has ever had the ability to infer anything new.
It's still just a brute-force engine, same as previous mathematical solvers. Useful in some circumstances, but provides almost zero insight into what's happening, and shows you nothing really new at all. It just saves a bit of legwork.
It's like inventing the wheel and, yes, it's great, we can now automate things far faster and better than previously. But the wheel isn't going to pop up an insightful opinion in your meeting about weight distribution bet