Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?

From: J.E. (troubled6man_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/21/04 

Date: 21 Nov 2004 06:34:12 -0800

examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural exa) wrote in message news:<320e992a.0411200516.3c1756a8@posting.google.com>...
> kramsay@aol.com (KRamsay) wrote in message news:<20041119211903.06525.00000114@mb-m24.aol.com>...
> > In article <39d6e584.0411171206.c24e54d@posting.google.com>,
> > troubled6man@yahoo.com (J.E.) writes:
> > [...]
> > |I think the best way to teach quantum mechanics is to assume that the
> > |wave-function is real (exists), and that the equations describe how it
> > |moves, and that's it, in practise that's all you need and every
> > |interpretation takes that seriously to the extent that the
> > |interpretation takes anything seriously at all.
> >
> > I mostly agree, but at least one of my physics professors in college
> > considered treating the wave-function as real as wrong, wrong, wrong.
> > "It applies only to a statistical ensemble, not to just a single
> > system." (!) I would feel at least some qualms about leaving students
> > with the idea that there's a consensus opinion among physicists about
> > the reality of it.
>
> Let's remind that there is no universally accepted philosophical
> interpretation of quantum physics. If you take Copenhagen
> interpretation as true, or any interpretation that attributes
> existence to the wave function then you arrive at Penrose's absurd
> quantum dualism. Reviving Cartesian Dualism, what a great idea! Hah!

Quite a grandiose claim. I agree that Cophenhagen +
wave-function-reality leads to dualism, and so does any other
interpretation that takes the Copenhagen macro-world seriously and the
wave-function seriously, but that is hardly the class of "all
interpretations that take attribute existence to the wave function",
far from it. If you attribute existence to the wave function and
nothing else, there is no dualism of any kind, let alone silly kinds.

> > Hintikka misleads the unwary reader by causing him (i.e. you) to
> > think that "first order statement" has come to mean something more
> > than a statement in "ordinary" first-order logic. It has done so
> > only in Hintikka's own terminology. He claims his system should
> > count as first-order logic, but this is not what anybody else means
> > by it.
> >
> > Certainly the Goedel completeness theorem is only for first-order
> > logic, not IF logic.
>
> Hintikka's authority on Godel is at best laughable. His book "On
> Godel" is ridden with mathematical errors, and sloppy philosophical
> arguments. It was the worst book on Godel I read. I don't think he is
> an intelligent person. I still got to take it from the library, and
> write here on some of the errors. He couldn't even tell what Godel
> numbering is rigorously, yet alone tell the relation between
> incompleteness theorems and Turing undecidability properly.
>
> Philosophy departments are not what they used to be.
>
> Regards,

I like Hintikka because while his works are always riddled with errors
I can figure out what he "meant" and "correct it myself" a good
percentage of the time, and I *agree* that it's SAD that that makes
him BETTER than most other people I read who either talk in obvious
circles or never go anywhere or assume that I already know facts from
other books (unreferenced) that I can't find anywhere. I think
Hintikka is intelligent, I don't know if he has bad editors for his
books, or if his english is so bad that that's the best his editors
can do, but even that doesn't excuse all his errors because sometimes
they are in the formulas and so there is no excuse at all, either he's
sloppy himself or some copy editors are really really bad, and my bet
would be on Hintikka being sloppy, but that doesn't make him
unintelligent.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... interpretation, in which gravity is not a classical force. ... in which gravity remains a classical force. ... physics of relativity harder to understand. ... acceleration of a target body toward a source mass, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... what defines mind, unless you think any info processor is a mind). ... Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but you should have done that before you ... quantum physics is *not* a substitute for reading a damn book. ... (and each taking us further away from dualism). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Free Will
    ... evolution, or classical mechanics, or relativity, or chemistry does. ... Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce ... the Copenhagen interpretation is philosophy, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... > |interpretation takes anything seriously at all. ... but at least one of my physics professors in college ... > about the safety of using set theory. ... Since we haven't proven that ALL the set theory axioms taken together ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Michelson-Morley experiment
    ... By replacing c with oo the lorentz transform reduces ... Thus his interpretation is mathematically ... It's called physics. ...
    (sci.physics)