Comments
imdfantom t1_jc1p2ds wrote
>if quantum mechanics genuinely entails violation of the principle of noncontradiction,
It doesn't.
It just allows for unintuitive states, that are commonly mistakenly described in ways that make it seem like the principle of noncontradiction is being violated.
Elijah_Turner t1_jc1s4wh wrote
An ironically sloppy comment.
Also, “If QM genuinely entails violation of principle of noncontradiction, QM belongs in the trash heap.” Maybe it’s the other way around regarding what belongs in the trash heap as a theory.
rejectednocomments t1_jc1sa1t wrote
If you can satisfy my “unless” condition, go for it.
Elijah_Turner t1_jc1t7fq wrote
If you mean ‘countenance’ (weird word use) as in how you’re meant to accept, admit, or support that a violation exists, then I don’t know what to tell ya. It’s not within the scope of this article to tell you how to accept it, just that the violation exists.
rejectednocomments t1_jc1tle1 wrote
Give me one example of a genuine violation of the principle of noncontradiction.
Elijah_Turner t1_jc1ukgj wrote
Omg you changed your comment! Ahah
Ok isn’t Quantum Mechanics the proof of this? My initial assumption was that you wanted to scrap QM because of ideological belief a.i. “I believe in the opposite of what this article is saying, therefore I will trash the theories that support it.”
Now, since I’m not a smart science person, I just trusted the conclusions about QM in the article. Does it in fact not prove the point the author is making?
rejectednocomments t1_jc1urdp wrote
I don’t want to scrap QM. Those examples don’t look like violations of PNC to me, and I think the author is just misunderstanding the examples or PNC.
357Magnum t1_jc1v3ja wrote
Ok, but this article relies on the exact sorts of "truth" the author is seeking to dismiss in order to argue the "truth" of its own assertions.
The whole argument about quantum mechanics, for example, is based on empirical observations if scientific experiments, all of which relies on foundationalism, etc.
This has always been my problem with arguing against knowledge or logic in general. You can't argue that logic isn't real without using logic. You can't argue against the concept of truth without at least assuming the truth of your premises.
While I'm not against the ancient thought that truth may not be knowable, and it is a valid question to always ask, I don't think it can ever get very far.
Even if truth and logic being real somehow isn't "true" without a circular reference to the very idea of truth, at least assuming truth is true can be useful as a worldview
Elijah_Turner t1_jc1vti6 wrote
Ok this is the section right after the description of the double slit experiment, maybe you can point me to where there’s a misunderstanding:
“Now if we look at the logic behind this sequence of events that have been empirically observed we can see a clear contradiction with classical logical laws. A product of quantum mechanics is an understanding of wave-particle duality in which all quantum entities behave in two contradictory manners, as particle and as wave, and as a result of how they are observed as behaving the same matter can be given two separate identities. Two logical impossibilities have occurred; quantum entity x behaves as wave x and particle x when the two are contradictory and this quantum entity x is always identical to both wave x and particle x at the same time. Furthermore, given that we can not state determinately whether at any given moment a proposition about the nature of a quantum entity behaving as a particle or a wave is true or false, the answer being completely subject to incalculable probability, the final law of the excluded middle is also not being followed here. Thus, scientifically observed, empirical and existent phenomena in the form of quantum mechanics displays to us that three classical laws of logic are non-universal.”
rejectednocomments t1_jc1w5ve wrote
I read that. Where is the violation of PNC? Asserting that there’s a contradiction doesn’t mean there is one.
Take wave-particle duality as an example. There are experiments where light behaves as a wave, and some where it behaves like a particle. But none where it behaves as both! How to understand this is a good question, but it’s a big leap to just assume a violation of PNC.
Elijah_Turner t1_jc1xfbj wrote
“a particle is going through both slits, none of the slits and only one slit all at once.”
Is this incorrect then?
rejectednocomments t1_jc1xn0s wrote
That’s wrong.
Elijah_Turner t1_jc1xtzd wrote
Is it the author who’s wrong about the theory, or is the theory wrong?
GepardenK t1_jc1xwc3 wrote
>Ok, but this article relies on the exact sorts of "truth" the author is seeking to dismiss in order to argue the "truth" of its own assertions.
Yes, maybe it's just where I hang but I've seen so many of these pseudo-deconstructions lately and it's getting pretty boring. If you argue against a framework then don't keep standing on that same framework - just abandon it.
For example, if I make a deconstructive argument against God, or gods, then I'm not gonna end with: "... and hence that it why it is God's will that God does not exist".
In the same vein, don't make truth claims about the nonexistence of truth. If it does not exist then you should not need to rely on it.
rejectednocomments t1_jc1yh45 wrote
The author.
Okay, when you have one slit open and fire a photon or an electron or whatever, you get a dot on the screen on the other side. When you have the other slit open, you get a dot in a different location. If you have both slits open, you don’t get either dot, but instead a band suggesting a wave.
Elijah_Turner t1_jc1zokz wrote
Ok I’m trying to read up on it, and other articles explaining the double slit experiment kinda say the same thing. The photon simultaneously takes every possible trajectory. Again, I’m reading things in layman’s terms.
Can you please give me something more substantial than just negation here? Because I still don’t see how the author is wrong…
rejectednocomments t1_jc200c7 wrote
Who says it also goes through none of the slits and only one slit all at once?
357Magnum t1_jc205pe wrote
Yeah, but I don't think that you can even make an argument against truth without assuming some truth at least. Argumentation itself relies on Truth as a foundation
Elijah_Turner t1_jc21kzx wrote
Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time. Like, that’s the proof of that statement right there. As observed by the double slit experiment…
Unless you’re gonna substantiate your side a bit more, I’m not that into the endless negation. Explain to me why QM is fundamentally misunderstood in this article as it relates to the PNC.
rejectednocomments t1_jc224ay wrote
Why do you think superposition implies this?
imdfantom t1_jc228wm wrote
Different person
I was going to answer elsewhere but I will respond here quickly for now.
>Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time
Ah, not exactly.
The electron isn't in both "A" and "not A" states, it is in one state which is a superposition of "A and not A".
I understand the distinction seems meaningless, but it makes all the difference
Also, the discussion points seem to be veering to interpretation of QM which is a can of worms we shouldn't really open.
QM is a very useful tool, but we have to be very clear when we are discussing QM results versus QM interpretation. The former is agreed upon by all people who study QM, the latter is still up in the air .
[deleted] t1_jc232sp wrote
[deleted]
GepardenK t1_jc248bv wrote
Well of course you can't. If you want to make a truth claim then by definition your position must be that truth claims can be made. The best you can do is to make a distinction where you say that some things can be said to be true (which then would include your own position, lucky break I guess), while most other things can't be said to be true.
CrimzonSun t1_jc27g23 wrote
Its kind of a tool of necessity isn't it though? The whole point of Godel's second incompleteness theorem was showing a system can never prove its own consistency. You'd need an "outside" system to analyse logic. Since no one has conceived of a way to do that (and on the face of it is impossible and would anyway just result questioning the consistency of that system), you just have to kind of shrug and get on with it, using what we have. Not very satisfying, but here we are.
Heartbroken_Boomer t1_jc2b5x0 wrote
Cringe Analytics...
rejectednocomments t1_jc2ivv2 wrote
Not an argument
Heartbroken_Boomer t1_jc31esw wrote
Purposefully so, since arguments for analytics are to be made inside a certain context and framework only. This limitation to understanding and reasoning is cringe
rejectednocomments t1_jc327sa wrote
Base_Six t1_jc3mnez wrote
If it's possible for a particle to both exist and not exist or to be in multiple positions at once, then those things are not contradictory propositions, even though they intuitively appear to be. Fundamentally, the principle of non contradiction describes logic, and not subatomic particles.
[deleted] t1_jc3ze0y wrote
[removed]
AspiringWorldbuilder t1_jc4w18u wrote
I am by no means an expert on quantum physics so please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the double slit experiment is that the particle acts as a wave when unobserved and as a particle when observed. Such a conclusion is unintuitive (as mentioned earlier) because it implies that our observations can affect reality and that particles can act as both particles and waves under different circumstances. It seems a leap, however, to go from this point to arguing that it does both simultaneously (which would imply a contradiction). As far as I can tell, the only statement we can make is that it's nature is undetermined as it approaches the slit because it has the potential to be both a particle and a wave, but both are not actualized simultaneously.
Regardless, I would agree with the original argument that if something appears to violate the PNC, we should disbelieve it rather than disbelieving the PNC. The reason for this is that without the PNC everything becomes trivial. A tree is both a tree and not a tree. Everything is everything and nothing at once. Logic becomes impossible. As Aristotle would put it, we would become vegetables rather than human beings. If something appears to violate the PNC, then we should examine it closely and seek out any potential errors. Given that we are here dealing with empirical experiments that are at the forefront of science (and thereby not very well understood), I don't think we have any justification for believing the PNC is violated even if I have massively misrepresented the experiment and the article is right on that point.
Elijah_Turner t1_jc54ujq wrote
Thank you for such a thorough answer, that makes sense
Cmyers1980 t1_jc72nzh wrote
> foundationalism
What is this?
357Magnum t1_jc7d1mm wrote
The subject of the original article...
GrandStudio t1_jc7i2w6 wrote
Forget the careful dissections of the meanings of truth, logic, axiom and foundation.
The reality is that truth is contingent and is a construct that we impose on reality that is "yet-to-be-known" and may be unknowable.
Certainly axioms and logic lead us to constructs that are useful and accurate descriptions of reality, but there is plenty of room for disagreement on even those constructs, never mind how what we "know" may change in the future.
On this PI day (3-14) I am contemplating how "pi" may be our closest daily interaction with the
infinite. The idea that "pi" has been calculated to over a trillion
digits and that there are a trillion more out there, existing but
unknown, challenges our very idea of the meaning of existence and truth.
The "yet-to-be-known" -- whether digits of pi or the next elementary
particle or the communications systems between trees or the true nature
of the multiverse -- clearly exists "out there" waiting to be
comprehended by human conceptual consciousness.
Yet "pi" reminds us that however detailed and accurate our view, there is always more to
discover. Human concepts are a construct that we impose on an
underlying reality that may not be fully reducible to definitions and
measurements -- an analog reality rendered by digital tools. Like a
digital picture, no matter how fine grained the pixels, there's still
those damned spaces.
XiphosAletheria t1_jcbypxf wrote
I think most people who reject the notion of "truth" replace it with "utility". That is, rather than insist that X is true or false, they'd evaluate it on whether or not is useful to believe. That avoids the contradiction you mentioned.
GepardenK t1_jcc4c4z wrote
It doesn't avoid the contradiction. Because whether or not something is useful is a truth statement in itself. Without truth usefulness is undefined.
XiphosAletheria t1_jcc6wsn wrote
But only if you're still hung up on trying to decide whether or not things are true in the first place. Something being useful doesn't have to be a truth statement. I might find something very useful that you find utterly useless. That is, utility is subjective in a way that truth isn't, which is the best reason for thinking in terms of utility rather than truth. Because most things people believe they believe because they are useful in some way. And recognizing that makes it easierto accept people holding beliefs you personally disagree with. Mostly fighting over whether something is true or not is pointless, especially because when it comes to things like controversial political beliefs, most are rooted in subjective values anyway.
GepardenK t1_jccjktk wrote
No, all of this is truth statements. You seem to be selective about what true things you consider "truth", so that you can argue against truth while still keeping your own non-truth "true". Subjectivity itself relies on truth, since for something to be subjective it must be true that it is not objective - and so on.
XiphosAletheria t1_jcf46ea wrote
But my point is that that doesn't matter. It is perfectly possible to think that something is subjective because you view seeing it that way as more useful than not seeing it that way. You don't need to worry about its truthfulness at all.
GepardenK t1_jcf55l6 wrote
That's fine, so long as you keep it to yourself, but then you don't get to make statements about what is and isn't useful. Because if you make assertions, that is to say you impose yourself on others, while also maintaining that truth isn't something to be worried about - then that's just a rhetorical way of trying to have your cake and eat it too.
quiettown999 t1_jdx5w0j wrote
I love this comment!
Human perception is the limiting factor for defining truth.
No reason we can't explore the 'yet-to-be-known', assume it's identity, or make explorations on that assumption.
In the end, the discussion about truth will still be limited by the parties having the discussion, and what they agree upon as 'reality' or 'truth'.
GrandStudio t1_je0vqmq wrote
Gosh, thanks.
Totally agree. I like to think about the discussion of truth as a process that we engage in together.
rejectednocomments t1_jc1lwes wrote
“Truth is a criterion by which we judge a proposition, or a quality by which we determine a proposition to be factual”
This is conflating a theory of truth with a theory of it’s assertability, or the basis on which we say or judge something to be true.
You might think this is minor, and it may end up being irrelevant to the point, but I people would stop making such stupid mistakes.
Continuing, if quantum mechanics genuinely entails violation of the principle of noncontradiction, QM belongs in the trash heap, unless you can explain how I’m supposed to be able to countenance such violations.
None of the examples presented violate PNC anyways. While there was a movement to modify logic based on QM, denting PNC wasn’t part of it, and anyways that movement has largely been abandoned.
Russell’s paradox shows that Frege’s axioms are wrong, not that every axiom system will be paradoxical.
Way too much of this is just sloppy and wrong.