Re: Is State Vector Reduction a 'Process'?

Arnold Neumaier <Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>rof@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> A physicist who gives an
>> apparently straightforward, if slightly confusing, answer
>> to a question about physics, without making it clear that
>> this question has an unusual status in physics, that,
>> unlike most questions in physics, this one has no
>> well-established answer, is implicitly telling the
>> person that this question is just like other questions
>> in physics, that is has a well-established answer, and
>> that in fact the answer being given is the well-established
>> one.
>>
>> Now this is what you did, and you interpreted my post as an attack
>> on you, became angry, and treated me to three question marks and a
>> lecture about how everything is mere opinion and belief:
>>
>>>Everything called
>>>knowledge is in fact a set of beliefs of the person claiming it.

>You seem to be projecting _your_ anger onto me.

Perhaps it seems that way to you; I assure you that I'm not.

>That you find three question marks and a short essay on learning
>truth in controversial matters an aggressive behavior in a context
>where controversial things are discussed is a sign of your emotional
>state rather than a property of my contribution.

Perhaps you use three question marks and assertions that everything
is mere opinion and belief all the time, but I read quite a lot
of your posts, and often enjoy reading them, and it seems that
you rarely do that. Your behaviour in this case seemed to be
an exception to your normal tone.

>To say that ''Everything called knowledge is in fact a set
>of beliefs of the person claiming it.'' does not contradict the
>objectivity of mathematical definitions. When I say that a Banach
>space is a normed, complete vector space, I both state my belief
>and happen to coincide with the social consensus of the guild of
>mathematicians.

Indeed, but the question is how it appears to the person for whom
your reply was intended. You are saying that one can adopt a
particular point of view, namely that everything anybody ever
says is their opinion and must be considered that way, and that it
might or might not coincide with what is well-established, and that
the onus is on the reader to determine whether what is said
is well-established or not. From this point of view, you weren't
being dishonest; I agree.

>And when I say that state reduction is a
>physical process, I both state my belief and happen to coincide with
>famous physicists like von Neumann and many others, and this is good
>enough to make this statement honestly.

Well, von Neumann was actually of the opinion that state reduction
wasn't a physical process, as far as I can determine from reading
his papers. In your post, you also said (more or less) that it
wasn't a physical process, so I presume you left out a "not"
above.

I happen to also think it's unlikely that state vector collapse is
a physical process, although I wouldn't presume to dogmatically
state that it isn't if asked by somebody who wasn't already familiar
with the subject. If I did that, I would be presenting what
is merely my opinion as though I were certain that it was
true.

Consider, for example, somebody who liked Penrose's gravitational
collapse interpretation. According to your criteria of honesty,
that person could say "Yes, collapse is a physical process,"
while being perfectly honest, since his opinion coincides
with that of a famous physicist. The poor person who asked
the question in the first place would have gotten two "honest"
answers to his question, one saying no (from you) and one
saying yes. Neither of the answerers would have given any
indication that their answer was merely their opinion,
and so the questioner would be left confused, and would
have to distrust future answers that he got from supposedly
respectable physicists.

You may very well say that this is a harsh lesson that he needs to
learn. I would say that it would be better if people clearly
distinguished between what was merely their opinion and
what is well-established, and then those who ask questions
would be able to trust the answers that physicists give them.

As another example, if somebody asks "Is Riemann hypothesis true?",
most knowledgeable people would reply that it isn't known whether
or not it is true, although it is widely believed that it is.
Somebody who simply says "Yes, it's true," would be being honest
by your criteria, but not by mine.

>It is ridiculous to require a percentage of people in a field
>to agree with you before you utter a statement without adding
>a qualification like 'I believe' or 'Some physisicts believe'.
>There would never be an agreement on the percentage required
>to do so.

I agree. I never suggested that one should require a
specific percentage of physicists to agree with one before
saying something. I do think, however, that if one knows
that a statement is merely an opinion, and that more than
50% of physicists hold the opposite opinion, one can
say that it is controversial, and that it shouldn't
be stated as though it were a fact. I gave 50% as an example
of a figure which would indicate a controversy, not as
a boundary between controversy and non-controversy.

R.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is State Vector Reduction a Process?
    ... > is mere opinion and belief all the time, but I read quite a lot ... what I said and what physicists observe. ... > the question in the first place would have gotten two "honest" ... This is the typical situation one finds when controversy prevails. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: DESIDERATA
    ... Your opinion is overruled by experimental data. ... Physicists will decide the answers to those two based on the ... STRING THEORY It is always described as strings of ENERGY but ENERGY ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time for a photon.
    ... My *opinion* is that a lot of people that write popular press ... today's physicists have made a shift error, ... mass IF we could actually accelerate it to the ... are aware that what applies to particles with rest ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Mathematics and the physical world.
    ... > Most of physicists ask why mathematics works in physics, ... > This seem to be a mystery. ... > I'd like you to explain your opinion about this very important question. ... > Mathematics seems to represent the physical world in a way that we do not ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The existance of time as anything other than a mere "concept"
    ... > It is self evident that matter, space, and energy exist ... Do you have a complete understanding of exactly what these physicists ... >>physical process over which we have no control? ... > evident the universe exists as something other than a mental concept. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading