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

From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:31:10 -0500

Lester Zick wrote:
[...]
>
> Well, on a practical level, even quantum theory uses mechanisms in the
> form of symmetries. They just aren't very good mechanisms because no
> one in quantum theory can explain why one symmetry applies and another
> doesn't.

Why should it?

  That's what mechanics is supposed to be all about. And that's
> what theories are when they graduate from mere speculation. Quantum
> theory doesn't predict all that well either because there as vastly
> more symmetries in nature of no predictive value than there are of
> predictive value.

At least two notions of "symmetry" mixed up here.

  So, regarding the idea of symmetry in general, one
> would have to conclude that the epistemological foundation of quantum
> theory is practically useless.

"Whenever you use "in general" you're mixing several meanings and/or
categories. The result is more or less entertaining nonsense.

> However, on a theoretical level, I could just as easily ask you why
> you need mechanisms to ask questions about mechanisms? Same answer.

>>Machanisms were the chrochett and bugbear of 19-th century physics which
>>turned out to be an empricial failure in many respects.
>
>
> Not nearly as big a failure as quantum theory. And the constant
> forming the basis for quantum theory's predictive successes was a
> product of classical mechanics.

If QM is such a failure, how come it works?

Relevant Pages