Re: Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics

From: Gregory L. Hansen (glhansen_at_steel.ucs.indiana.edu)
Date: 12/16/04 

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:40:26 +0000 (UTC)

In article <41c258f7.67644674@netnews.att.net>,
Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:11:35 +0000 (UTC),
>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) in
>comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In article <41c13ddb.56649778@netnews.att.net>,
>>Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>[. . .]
>
>>>>>I strongly suspect that I dis quantum theory primarily because it
>>>>>morphed physics from "no stinkin reasons we can see" into just plain
>>>>>ol' "no stinkin reasons".
>>>>
>>>>So you want to reduce quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, I suppose.
>>>>But ignoring whether that's even possible, which unanswered questions
>>>>about classical mechanics have you chosen not to ask?
>>>
>>>This is interesting. I think I expect quantum theory can be reduced to
>>>mechanics even if it can't be exactly reduced to classical mechanics.
>>
>>Quantum mechanics already is a mechanics. It's not classical mechanics,
>>but it's quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics can be shown to be a
>>specialization of quantum mechanics. And my understanding is that it's
>>impossible to reduce quantum to classical mechanics because classical
>>mechanics doesn't have the concept of a superposition of states. It has
>>statistical mixtures of states, but not superpositions.
>
>Yeah, here I'd like to say that I consider quantum mechanics not a
>mechanics at all because it is really just a series of principles not
>relating things defined by those principles. I consider that there are
>certainly quantum effects and there is certainly quantum theory. But I
>don't see quantum theory explaining transitions between and among
>various quantum effects. And that's what I consider a mechanics does.

Apply the time evolution operator.

>
>Newtonian and classical mechanics generally rested their mechanics not
>on general observations alone but explanations for transitions between
>and among observations. That's mechanics. QM maintains there is no
>necessary explanation for any path a particle may anthropomorphically
>choose of those open to it as long as conservation principles apply in
>aggregate whereas classical mechanics considers those conservation
>laws apply in particular as well as in general. And without particular
>conservation you have no mechanical explanation for particle choices.
>You just wind up with a non material anthropomorphic probability.

Again I warn you against falling prey to your own hidden assumptions.
Quantum mechanics maintains that there is no defined path! Not that the
reason the particle takes a path is unknown, but that the path doesn't
even exist in the first place. By insisting that a path be taken, you've
already inserted a postulate of your own preference, and I'll immediately
ask you the reason that a single path can be taken.

>[. . .]

>>>>Why should time move forward at the same rate at all points in the
>>>>universe? Why should time always move forward at all points in the
>>>>universe?
>>>
>>>Well, time in what I choose to call material terms is just a temporal
>>>metric we commonly analyze in terms of EM frequency. In the past it
>>>has been measured in other terms of pendulum, balance wheel, or solar
>>>frequency. So, if these metrics change throughout the universe in
>>>response to velocity or gravitation, I, if not classical mechanics,
>>>see no reason our measures of time should not change as well.
>>
>>You're not thinking dramatically enough!
>
>This is exactly what makes physicists into drama queens uttering the
>immortal line: "we don't need no stinkin reasons". If you want drama,
>go on stage. A collateral objective of mine is to get scientists out
>of drama and back into mundane elementary mechanics instead of acting
>like a bunch of fairy queens preening and primping on a universal
>stage.

Then let your clock come back from The Vortex rewound. Whatever.

>
>> It's
>not a priori impossible for
>>someone to visit The Vortex in Oregon and come back ten years younger than
>>when he had left. It's not something we observe in practice, but that
>>sort of thing can't be ruled out a priori.
>
>I think you mean ten years younger than we are when he gets back.
>Nothing will make him any younger than he was when he left. In any
>event there is nothing apriori preventing this as long as he transits
>all the space in between at velocities probably not exceeding that of
>light.
>
>>But when you look for stinkin' reasons, you either have to derive them
>>from a priori necessities, or you've only given a reason in terms of other
>>postulates that have no stinkin' reason. And like I've suggested above,
>>a lot of what some people consider a priori necessities are only personal
>>preferences.
>
>No stinkin reason regressions are one of the greatest problems in
>conventional science. We have to find some logical necessity and way
>to preclude infinite regression or we have no mechanics or science; we
>only have more or less self consistent plausibilities.

What makes you think mechanics or science are more than self-consistent
plausibilities?

>
>>Consider also the well known point that even if there was a One True
>>Theory that exists, and even if we find it, we can never really prove that
>>we've found it. And that's really my basis for a distaste of finding the
>>"real reasons" for fundamental physics-- anyone who claims they've found
>>the "real reasons" as opposed to the fake reasons that merely make all the
>>right predictions have duped themselves; they're just guessing, and can
>>never do more.
>
>Quoth the raven, nevermore. And you know this how? All you can really
>know empirically is what has been found and not what can't be found.
>What can't be found is a matter of proof and self contradiction and
>there is none here not born of the frustration of empirical failure to
>explain..

I know this because you cannot measure every part of every phenomenon with
infinite precision from the beginning to the end of time. We've already
missed 15 billions years' worth of phenomena! There may be discrepencies
hiding a few sig-figs lower than your most precise measurements. There
may be conflicts with phenomena that you haven't explored yet. Physical
constants might change on time scales that are very long compared with
the times over which you've made detailed measurements. May be, might--
you don't know, and you can't know. And measurements aside, different
words can be used to describe the same quantitative predictions. E.g.
Lorentz's aether theory and special relativity make identical predictions
about the observable quantities in electrodynamics. Lorentz's theory has
an aether whose properties drop out by the time an observable is
calculated. We could call that surplus metaphysical baggage, but we
certainly can't say it's been empirically falsified.

A pre-"The Matrix" twist on Descarte's question, from a philosophy class,
is how do you know you're not a brain in a jar with memories and sensory
data given you by an interactive computer program, and all your
experiences lead you to conclude the wrong laws of nature?

[...]
>>
>>The philosophical lesson to take away is that a definite trajectory, and
>>even the very existence of particles, are not a priori necessities, and
>>not something the metaphysician can just take for granted. An explanation
>>of quantum mechanics in terms of particles with trajectories will just
>>shift us to a different set of unanswered questions.
>
>That all depends on what you mean by particles: what is particulated
>according to what mechanical necessity. As long as metaphysicians and
>physicists insist on treating particles as irreducible atomic monads,
>this will undoubtedly remain the case. When they get around to
>analyzing the stinkin reasons for their beliefs and what they imagine
>to be true, however, all that can change.

Quantum field theory is a theory of fields, and it is the field, not the
particle, that is taken as the irreducible atomic monad. Throw in
DeBroglie's relation and the superposition principle and you can get
sudden and finite changes in a momentum or energy or something, that can
be interpreted as particles.

But that's really just a concrete illustration of the more abstract point
that if you're going to try to explain something in terms of particles,
then particles themselves will remain unexplained. 

-- 
"I'm giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers
and say, 'Step off, bitch. This is my party and you're not invited.'"
   -- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_

Relevant Pages