Marcoen
You are confusing two issues. The point is we can potentially know, but it is, practically, very difficult, if not impossible in some areas. The argument that we can never know, is spurious, because that is stated in respect of the fact that there may alternatives. But these are possibilities which we cannot know, so whilst the statement is true, it is irrelevant and misleading. Science deals with what we can potentially know, this is, for us, physical existence.
Paul
Marcoen
"the fact that you are aware of an outside world doesn't necessarily mean that the objects of your sensory experience and imagination have an existence outside you"
As per the post below which I wrote first, you (and indeed most philosophers) are confusing physical existence as knowable to us, with the logic that there might be an alternative. This is irrelevant, we cannot know it. Science is concerned with the knowable, and establishing that objectively, albeit we have to presume it might just be one possibility. And within existence as knowable to us, it most definitely occurs independently of us. Us there really being the awareness function. Because, as per my point, we are aware of ourselves as a physical entity in the same way that we are aware of anything else.
Paul
Paul,
I'm not confusing anything. Like you, I'm a realist, so I agree with you that there is an outside world.
The quote is from Descartes: he doesn't agree with you. Even stronger is the Berkelian idealism: while Descartes stated that it is not sure that there is an outside world corresponding to perceived images of it, Berkely flat out denied the existence of an outside world. So according to Berkely, all objects exist only in our imagination.
Best regards,
Marcoen
Paul,
I'm not confusing anything.
Kant didn't state his argument (why we cannot know the physical world in itself) with respect to the fact that there may be alternatives. Knowledge of the (fundamental principles of the) world as it is in itself, apart from how it is observed, is synthetic a priori knowledge (Kant's terminology). Kant's work argues in great detail why it is not possible to attain such knowledge based on observation and reason. This work has caused a monumental shift in human thinking: I wouldn't call it irrelevant and misleading.
Your general view on science ("science deals with ..."), is certainly shared by others as well. I merely wanted you to say that there is no consensus: there are yet others who do not agree with you.
Best regards,
Marcoen
Paul wrote, " ... if we know how light works we can then reverse engineer what is received and discern what occurred which the light represents."
In fact, we do know how light works. That does not imply that we know what light "is" other than the empirical fact that it is identical to electromagnetic radiation. The further fact that *all* communication among *all* particles and bodies is limited to the speed of light compounds our ignorance of "what light represents" because in principle it represents *everything* we know about the world. Reverse engineering is therefore impossible in the case of a world that gives no indication -- either in theory or empirical observation -- of being engineered in the first place.
Tom
Marcus,
Thanks for commenting on my essay.
However, you have a mistaken view about what it is to observe something. You suppose that to observe something we merely have to observe the thing *indirectly* by virtue of its effects. That is absurd. If some crackpot claims that unicorns exist because he has seen an imprint of a hoof in the woods, do you believe him? Of course not. Yet when the top brass in physics claims that the Higgs bosons exist because they have seen traces of it, everybody is in shock and awe. But the emperor has no clothes on. The conclusion "X exists" cannot be drawn from the premises "if X exists, then trace T will be observed" and "trace T has been observed". It's a fallacy when a crackpot does it, it's a fallacy when a sophomore student does it, and it's a fallacy when the top brass in physics does it. Period.
N.B. Another fallacy is circular reasoning. You don't get so say: these are traces of a Higgs boson, so therefore the Higgs boson exists. Then you are assuming what has to be proven!
Futhermore, if by underdetermination of theory we have theories T, T' and T" that are consistent with experiment, then you simply don't get to say that T is more likely than T' or T". You gave two ridiculous examples of T' and T", but if you have this situation in reality (so three well-defined theories T, T' and T" in agreement with experiment) then theory choice depends largely on social factors. If you then believe in the theory T, then you will simply have to live with the situation that others will believe in another theory T' or T", while there is no instrument - at that moment! - to decide between the theories. In my PhD thesis I mentioned a transition from modern physics to postmodernism in physics: that is precisely this situation.
Last but not least, you seem to confuse the notions "discovery" and "explanation". Suppose that from theory T we can deduce the premise "if X exists, then trace T will be observed", and suppose that from experimental results we can deduce the premise "trace T has been observed". Then you don't get to claim that you have discovered X, that is, that you have proven that X exists. However, you do get to claim that theory T is an explanation of the results; and if there is no other theory T' that makes the same quantitative prediction then you even get to say that T is the best explanation avalable. Don't get me wrong: this is the situation at hand with the Higgs boson. Of course this is an additional justification for believing in the Standard Model and the Higgs boson. So you can say that you believe in P (you used the word "assume" but "believe" fits better in the language of philosophy of science) if Q has been observed and P --> Q follows from theory. But note that this also holds for the crackpot and his unicorn. The point here is that the statement "the Higgs boson is the best explanation available" and the statement "the Higgs boson has been discovered" are two distinct conclusions. Saying that it is the same is not how science works: only by a degradation of the traditional standard of scientific quality we can say that it lies within the realm of scientific discourse to identity these statements with another. I consider it malpractice.
By the way, as I remarked in an earlier post, the member of the CMS collaboration who reviewed my criticism for publication in Physics Letters B said that the criticism is correct but that physicists need no reminder of that. I doubt that: I think physicists do need a reminder. Hence my essay.
Best regards,
Marcoen
Marcoen
I am lost, and apologies if I am assuming you are saying something you are not. However, given previous posts, but without tracking them down....So can you confirm that you agree:
1 Physical existence is what we must presume is possibly only one form of existence, but it is what is potentially knowable to us, which is the function of a physical process. An alternative is only a logical possibility, and since we cannot know it, it is irrelevant. The point being that arguments which assert we can 'never know', etc in the context of a possible alternative are spurious. Because what is actually being said is that we cannot know what we cannot know, a useless statement of the blindingly obvious. Or worse still, it is asserting what can only be beliefs. But of course, if the right words are used these assertions can appear the product of 'deep thinking'/quasi scientific.
2 Physical existence is not affected by any form of sensing (particularly sight), or measurement. It is independent of the mechanisms which enable sentient organisms to be aware of it.
Paul
Marcoen
With respect to the physical existence we can investigate, knowledge of it is all we have. So Kant, as others, is not differentiating what can be known, from another possible alternative, which is irrelevant, because it cannot be known. The ultimate state we can achieve is knowledge, which after exhaustive testing, is verified. At that point we can deem it to be the equivalent of physical existence. We never have some form of 'direct access' to existence, and possible alternatives thereto.
So again, as stated above, pointing out that we cannot know what we cannot know, is not exactly earth shattering. But that is not really what they meant.
Paul
Tom
"In fact, we do know how light works. That does not imply that we know what light "is""
If I understand what was meant by this assertion, then it contains the lack of differentiation of context I keep referring to in recent posts here. We can only know existence as it is manifest to us (that is not a point about light, per se). There is always the possibility of an alternative, so we can never say what it 'really is'. But if we know what it is within the existentially closed system within which we are trapped, which is the implication of your 'we know how light works', then that is it.
What is this "communication"?
Without distinguishing the 'carrier' from the 'configuration' which the eye utilises, as that is too much detail for this point, light has physical properties, one of which is its speed of travel. Which must have an effect of the 'quality' of its ability to represent. So it may be very difficult, if not impossible to extrapolate, what occurred, but as I said, this is a practical problem, that is, the potential is there. That being a different state from the irrelevant point that we just cannot know what is occurring, which is an assertion based on a failure to understand what constitutes physical existence, and how it must occur, ie the reference is to what we cannot know, and should therefore not be trying to find out.
"it represents *everything* we know about the world"
Not so. Light is the medium through which we know of everything in terms of sight.
"Reverse engineering is therefore impossible..."
This is a spurious response, because it does not represent what I said.
Paul
Paul,
The sentence "we cannot know what we cannot know" is a tautology, and of little value indeed. Kant, however, was the first to distinguish the phenomenal world (the world as it is depicted in our mind after observation) from the noumenal world (the world as it is, apart from how it is being observed). Kant then stated that we cannot know the latter by observation. That is not a tautology: it defines a limit of our knowledge.
In your various posts you mention that knowledge is the result of a process. This reminds me of Whitehead. His opus magnus, "Process and Reality", is a very elaborate philosophy on perception as a process. You might want to read an introduction to his work, e.g. John B. Cobb's "Whitehead Word Book" is quite accessible. I think it is interesting for you.
As to your two points:
1. There is only one real world, and I think it is knowable. I agree with Kant that the noumenal world is not cognitively accessible by observation, but I hold that cognitive access to the noumenal world is possible without sensory observation.
2. It is widely accepted among physicists that when you measure a property of a microsystem (e.g. an electron), you disturb the microsystem.
Best regards,
Marcoen
Marcoen
"The sentence "we cannot know what we cannot know" is a tautology, and of little value".
Not so. It is a fact, and lies at the core of properly differentiating what we can investigate, from what we cannot, scientifically. A mistake philosophers usually make from the outset. Whatever physical existence is, we can only concern ourselves with the form of it (there may or may not be another) which is manifest to us, ie what is potentially knowable (which includes both directly validated knowledge, and hypothesis in the form of virtual sensing). Knowing being determined by a physical process, not philosophical ideas.
"Kant however..."
This is an example of how people get it wrong, but it sounds good. What is in our heads is irrelevant. That is, obviously, a perception of reality, not reality. Nobody, except those who do not understand how physical existence occurs, attributes processing in the head with having any affect on the physical circumstance, because that processing is not a physical process, and more importantly, the physical circumstance has already occurred, which is why it can THEN be processed in the head. Physical existence, for us, comprises an existential sequence and existent representations thereof (eg light). "Kant then stated that we cannot know the latter by observation." Which is incorrect, because as I stated above, it is critical to differentiate what is knowable from what is not. And, also, to understand that observation, or any form of sensing, revolves around the receipt of a physical input, this being the determinant of the form of existence we can know. The subsequent processing thereof being of no consequence to the physical circumstance. Within the existentially closed system of existence as knowable to us, it is possible to discern what occurred from the physical input received in any given sensory system (it may prove in practice to be impossible, but it is possible). That there might be an alternative to this is irrelevant, since we cannot, even potentially, know it, ie it is the impossible.
The overall point is that existence is independent of the mechanisms which enable awareness of it. Those mechanisms only enable one possible form of detection. But that is all we have, we cannot externalise ourselves from our own existence. So as I said, science can only be concerned with what is potentially knowable to us, not possible alternatives which, by definition, we cannot know. Religion does that.
A contributor to this site (Ray Monroe), who sadly died, introduced me to that book. Needless to say I was not impressed. Having established at the basic generic level how we are aware of existence and how that must occur, and then identifying why therefore relativity, spacetime and QM are fundamentally flawed, I have no desire to go any further. I am now finding the whole topic boring.
Re point 1. See above.
Re point 2. Just how, precisely, does one "disturb the microsystem" when one "measures" it? What is being measured must have already occurred. And whilst that fact kills this ludicrous concept stone dead, a further consideration is that the physical interaction involves an existent representation of what occurred anyway, it is known as light. Observation involves the receipt of light, which itself was generated as the result of a physical interaction with what occurred. What this, and other, flawed ideas are really about is an attempt to rationalise the fundamental problem with these theories, which stems from an incorrect presumption about how physical existence occurs. They presume some form of indefiniteness. Which is incorrect. But having made that mistake, there is then a constant battle to keep the theory 'on track', as physical existence occurs in a definite physical state. It should also be noted that no form of experimentation could differentiate discrete physically existent states anyway. The degree of alteration and duration involved is vanishingly small, apart from the fact that we are reliant on the ability of light to represent it. So this is not a method which can be utilised to substantiate a contrary presumption as to how physical existence occurs.
Paul
Paul,
The sentence "we cannot know what we cannot know" translates into the predicate-logical expression Ux --> Ux (x is unknowable if x is unknowable). That is an example of a tautology by definition of the term 'tautology'. There is no point in arguing with that. Moreover, this expression doesn't introduce a difference between things, so it is not at the core of anything.
Then the discussion about Kant. You call it "irrelevant" what is in the head, but when it comes to developing knowledge of the physical world based on sensory perception, that is ALL you have. Kant never said that the thing-in-itself is affected by the processing of sensory input data that takes place within the perceiving subject. You also wrote that Kant was incorrect in saying that the workings of the noumenal world cannot be known from observation, because "it is critical to differentiate what is knowable from what is not". But precisely Kant is the one who has described the border between what is knowable and what not. From your comments I see that you are not familiar with Kant's work; my advice would be to get familiar with the work of Kant before critizing it.
About disturbing the microsystem: see Heisenberg's famous piece about the microscope, printed e.g. in W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles Of Quantum Theory, page 21 ff. In short: if you want to measure the position of an electron, it has to interact with a photon and that by itself influences the position of the electron. Another example: positrons are annihilated, and thus cease to exist, upon position measurement (you use the annihilation reaction to determine the position).
Best regards,
Marcoen
Marcoen
"The sentence..."
The point is that what constitutes physical existence is what is potentially knowable to us, because we cannot know, ie receive information thereof, something which we cannot know, ie receive information thereof, as it is not part of our existence. You seem to fail to understand that we are trapped in an existentially closed system.
"Then the discussion..."
Again you fail to recognise the point that the subsequent processing of physical input received is not physics, as it does not affect the physical circumstance. I am not interested in precisely what Kant did or did not say. And for the record, I have his books and have read them, but that was 40 years ago.
"About disturbing the microsystem..."
Again, I am not interested in what people did or did not say, but what is. And as I asked, you tell me then, rather than quoting people, how any form of human activity alters the physical circumstance, because that has already occurred, and the physical interaction which enables the subsequent awareness of the physical circumstance does not involve that physical circumstance anyway. It involves a physically existent representation of it, in the case of sight this is commonly known as light. As far as I know, even in the bizarre representation of physical existence propagated by relativity/QM, nobody advocates that physical existence occurs 'backwards'.
"In short: if you want to measure the position of an electron, it has to interact with a photon and that by itself influences the position of the electron"
This is incorrect. Leave aside the detail as to whether this is the case in actuality. The underlying point is that measuring/observing/etc can only be in respect of something which has already occurred. You cannot measure, etc, something which is non-existent. You can, of course, predict what might occur. 'Interfering' with physical existence in any way, does not affect the physical circumstance, because what has occurred has already done so, and what occurs next does not exist before it occurs. That is, what happens is that something different occurs than what would otherwise have done so, had the factors been different. Which is a statement of the blindingly obvious. You do not affect what happens next, because it is not pre-existent.
Paul
Paul,
Your term "existentially closed system" is unknown to me. In thermodynamic sense, we can view the universe as a whole as an isolated system, but observers are open systems: there is interaction with the environment as well as exchange of matter.
Let us focus on the idea of the outside world.
Of course, if we measure the position of an electron, you influence it. Even if you assume that the electron actually had a position prior to the measurement, the point is that you don't know what that position is. And if you want to find that out, you have to use an interaction with photons and that interaction causes a disturbance. This has already been proven by Heisenberg; there is no point in arguing with that. This is at the core of the principle of uncertainty in quantum mechanics.
We could, however, neglect the disturbance. Then a far more interesting question pops up: did the electron have a position at all prior to the measurement? Let me put that in other words: suppose we measure the position of an electron and we find the electron at position X; then we ask: where was the electron just prior to that measurement?
From your posts it seems that you take the realist position: you answer this question with "prior to the measurement, the electron was at X". This is in line with your statement "you cannot measure something which is nonexistent". However, virtually the entire community of quantum physicists will disagree with you. The orthodox answer to this question is: "prior to the measurement, the electron wasn't really anywhere". So they'll tell you that the electron did exist prior to measurement, but it didn't have a position at all.
The crux is this: you wrote that you're stating the blindingly obvious, but your statement is widely disputed. You may answer to that that quantum physics is then fundamentally flawed; quantum physicists, however, will then reply that it is not their theory that is fundamentally flawed, but yours.
Best regards,
Marcoen
Marcoen
"Your term "existentially closed system" is unknown to me"
Whether it is or not is irrelevant. I have explained it. What is physical existence to us is all that is potentially knowable to us. And that is a function of a particular physical process, ie we receive physical input (hypothesis being in effect virtual sensing, ie it cannot 'override' sensing and discern what is inherently unknowable). "but observers are open systems". Not so, observation involves the receipt of, observers are existent entities. We cannot transcend our own existence.
"Of course, if we measure the position of an electron, you influence it"
How, I keep asking this question.
"Even if you assume that the electron actually had a position prior to the measurement, the point is that you don't know what that position is. And if you want to find that out, you have to use an interaction with photons and that interaction causes a disturbance"
What do you mean, "even if". It either had a position and was therefore existent, or it did not. Physical existence does not occur in terms of vagueness. You do not know what it was, that is why you are conducting the activity of measuring, but it was something. The interaction with the photons, ie the light representation of what you are trying to find out about, does not affect the physical circumstance of those photons. The interaction (ie observation) just causes them then to cease existence in the form they were then in. In just the same way that 'light' carrying a representation of the waste basket to my left when to hits the brick wall to my right, then carries a representation of that wall. The 'disturbance' only involves a different subsequent outcome to whatever would have otherwise occurred, it does not affect what had occurred, neither does it affect what subsequently occurred, because that was not existent and cannot therefore be affected.
"The orthodox answer to this question is: "prior to the measurement, the electron wasn't really anywhere". So they'll tell you that the electron did exist prior to measurement, but it didn't have a position at all"
Which is obviously ludicrous when expressed in those stark terms, which is what I do. But they will express it in ways which gloss over that.
I know what the basic argument would be. But the simple fact is, ie it is not my theory, that physical existence occurs definitively. People can think and believe in whatever they want, but we usually label that religion, not science.
Paul
Paul,
I already told you how a measurement disturbes the microsystem: if you measure the position of an electron, it interacts with a photon and that by itself influences the position of the electron. That's it. For a more elaborate description of Heisenberg's microscope, see here.
Furthermore, about the electron just prior to a measurement of its position you wrote this: "It either had a position and was therefore existent, or it did not." Actually, no. There is a third possibility: it didn't have a position but it did exist. This view is held by the overwhelming majority of quantum physicists. It is, in fact, the accepted view in physics. I don't believe in it, but that doesn't matter here.
Let's recall that this thread arose because I stated that there is little consensus about anything beyond the truth of one's own existence. You wrote that you were stating the obvious, and I merely pointed out that there are others (in casu the majority of physicists) who hold that what you think is obvious just isn't true.
Best regards,
Marcoen
Marcoen
"I already told you how a measurement disturbes the microsystem..."
You have indeed "told" me. What you have not done is proved how this can occur, since it is an impossibility, as both the actual event and the light representation of it are previously existent. And as far as I know, it is not possible to physically affect something which has already physically occurred.
"There is a third possibility: it didn't have a position but it did exist"
That's novel. Something exists but in doing so has no spatial position, how does that work then?
"This view is held by the overwhelming majority of quantum physicists"
I know. It has to be, because the whole basis of their theory is wrong, it is contradictory to how physical existence must occur. So rationalisations like this have to be invoked in order to resolve what is actually a fundamental fault in the theory. Another one is that observation/measurement has an effect. The whole point being that physical existence is different to how this theory depicts it, in simple terms it is definitive, the theory presumes it is not.
"Let's recall that this thread arose..."
Yes, and I said that applies to everything, awareness of ones own physical existence is no different to awareness of the brick wall, in physical terms. That is, existence, as knowable to us, is definitive, it can, if practical problems can be overcome, be knowable, ie at the very least it is potentially knowable.
Paul
Paul,
Quantum physics does not offer an explanation about how something can exist without having a spatial position: it is merely laid down in the axioms that this is the case, that is, that quanta (i.e. "particles") exist without having a position in absence of observation. It is only by observation that the quantum gets a position. As Bohr put it: by observation we "compell" the particle to assume a definite position. This view has been developed in the 1920's - but I understand it if this is novel to you.
Concerning the disturbance of the microsystem we may be talking about two different things. We have to distinguish between the process that happens "inside" an observer, which transforms sensory input data into knowledge, and the (preceding) process of getting the sensory input data. The whole thing about disturbing the microsystem is about the latter process, but I think you may be talking about the former. I agree with you that this process does not disturb the system.
Your criticsm of quantum theory reminds me of that of the philosopher Meyerson. He held (in 1931) that quantum physics is a deceptive facade in that a quantum physicist pretends to hold the orthodox view while in truth his principles are entirely different, because his belief in the existence of the object at a definite position in absence of observation is solid as a rock.
Best regards,
Marcoen
Marcoen,
Very interesting and concise read. Much appreciated by someone who isn't entrenched in the world of Particle Physics. It seems to me that the notion of 'Irrational Exuberance' has not only infiltrated our economic-lives, but almost every domain of western culture (science included). While a certain amount of excitement and idealism is required to fuel progress, when taken to an extreme degree it only serves to cover up 'Inconvenient Truths' of models that aren't as complete/airtight as they proclaim themselves to be.
Take care sir!
Marcoen
No, I know it has no explanation. Nothing like basing a theory on an assertion, and one that has no validity. And then trying to get out of the resulting contradiction by asserting another false occurrence, ie that existence is determined by observation. The word novel meant daft, not that it is new to me. The whole idea that something can exist but does not have a spatial position, along with several other concepts, is just ludicrous.
"The whole thing about disturbing the microsystem is about the latter process"
You are quite right to differentiate the two aspects, many people do not. But, as I have already said, although what is received is not what occurred, this is not disturbed either. What existed (ie the light) did so up until the point of interaction. At that time it then just ceased to exist in that form. That is, what was observed, ie received, was not disturbed. It cannot be, it existed previously to being received.
On your last point, it would be fascinating to understand the sociological/ psychological genesis and development of these ideas. I suspect it was time and place, ie lack of worldwide instant communication, etc, and the superficial attraction of an apparently more dynamic way of describing the world than what the old way seemed to do. When I went to university (late 60s) there was an argument between empiricists and phenomenologists, which very much reflected the ethos of the 60s-challenge the status quo, everything is relative. Obviously, it is easy now to understand why they continue to prevail, indeed there is an industry in generating corrections, so long as the base stays.
Paul
