Submitted by ADefiniteDescription t3_xyumwc in philosophy
sticklebat t1_irmw0ed wrote
Reply to comment by TMax01 in Quantum philosophy: 4 ways physics will challenge your reality by ADefiniteDescription
> You're building a strawman here. The nature of the issue is broader than just that one word.
No, I’m not. You keep saying that the misconception that observation requires a conscious observer is a common misconception among physicists. It is not. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea but it’s entirely false.
> The ones I used, which is why I said that. I'll leave it for you to obsess over which ones exactly.
So you’re blaming Bohr for your choice of words? Good on ya, that makes so much sense! /s
> Nah. The prize related to the "shut up and calculate" parts of the science, not their interpretations and conversations.
Then you frankly don’t understand it. I was beginning to gather as much by your other comments, but this is the nail in the coffin. The argument Einstein and Bohr were having was about whether the universe can be locally real (another example of scientific/philosophical terminology being easy to confuse). The argument they participated in led to the creation of different possible interpretations of quantum mechanics and culminated in John Bell realizing that any locally real interpretation must predict different correlations than an interpretation that isn’t locally real. He was hoping and expecting that this would allow physicists to show that the universe is in fact locally real, making quantum mechanics a bit easier for many to swallow. This Nobel Prize was awarded to the primary experimenters who tested those correlations, and who found the opposite of what Bell hoped. Bell’s theorem and tests of it are absolutely central to any discussion about interpretations of quantum mechanics, and they’ve ruled out all interpretations consistent with Einstein’s argument. The notion that Bell tests are unrelated to interpretations of quantum mechanics is laughably wrong.
> LOL. Yes, you misunderstand the problem. You are what I refer to as a neopostmodernist. If only something as simple as Bell's Theorem could be used to sort out language, consciousness, and existential truth.
You are what I would refer to as obtuse. You’re just changing what we’re arguing about halfway through to make yourself sound smarter. I am not arguing about the details of language, consciousness, and existential truth. I am merely pointing out that the language used to describe quantum mechanics is easily misunderstood, and that the specific misconception that quantum mechanics places conscious observation on a pedestal is easily dispelled by clarifying what the words used to talk about quantum mechanics means. But go ahead and call me a “neopostmodernist” if using big made up words makes you feel better, and accusing me of misunderstanding grandiose problems that were never under discussion in the first place.
TMax01 t1_irn3ag5 wrote
>You keep saying that the misconception that observation requires a conscious observer is a common misconception among physicists. I
As a strawman, it is not an entirely inadequate proxy for what I actually said, but it is not what I actually said.
>You are what I would refer to as obtuse.
And you are what I refer to as cantankerous. You're in the wrong subreddit. This is r/philosophy, not r/physics.
>. I am not arguing about the details of language, consciousness, and existential truth. I am merely pointing out that the language [...]
Oops.
>used to describe quantum mechanics is easily misunderstood, and that the specific misconception that quantum mechanics places conscious observation on a pedestal is easily dispelled by clarifying what the words used to talk about quantum mechanics means.
Quantum mechanics is easily misunderstood. Perhaps owing to the fact it cannot be easily (or actually) understood. "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." The meaning of words is also (supposedly independently) not easily understood, despite the faith one might have in any particular definition or dictionary. So despite the devastation you have wreaked on the strawman argument that I have besmirched the good name of Niels Bohr, the actual issue I am discussing remains, unperturbed.
I don't identify you as a neopostmodernist to "make myself feel better", I do it to accurately describe your position and practices, or at least the intellectual milieu and time period of your reasoning.
The problem is that "clarifying [...] the words used to talk about" any subject, let alone the supremely difficult subjects of QM or consciousness, doesn't actually work as well as you insist it should. Whether 'observation' or 'measurement' or 'interaction' or any other word is used, and no matter how rigorously one attempts to nail down what any of them "mean", the difficulty of understanding or discussing these things does not evaporate, or even lessen, and the effort itself simply compounds the difficulty. Scientists can shut up and calculate, but when they don't, and for everyone else who simply accepts what (current) science provides without further consideration, the nature of meaning, in both words and more generally, makes the difficulty of dealing with the possible correlation, or at least parallel, between the ineffably quantum and the ineffably conscious all the more enticing.
Personally, I don't suffer from this problem, because my philosophy resolves the nature of consciousness more completely than neopostmodern philosophies do. I can understand the parallels between quantum uncertainty and existential uncertainty, and recognize the meaning of those parallels without conflating the subjects. But the problem remains, even for me, when I attempt to discuss these issues with other people, and the more neopostmodernist they are, the more cantankerous they get. You have demonstrated that well, I believe, and I apologize for engaging on this topic with you as an object lesson on principle, since I don't disagree with you at all about how much that strawman deserved the thorough thrashing you've given it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
sticklebat t1_irn84qa wrote
> As a strawman, it is not an entirely inadequate proxy for what I actually said, but it is not what I actually said.
It is exactly what you said. That is the exact misconception that was being discussed when you replied, quoting another person, and said “it’s a common misconception among physicists.” I’m always amazed by people on Reddit who pretend they didn’t say the things they said, that are still there for all to see.
> This is r/philosophy, not r/physics.
Yes, in an article about philosophical ideas related to a model of physics. You cannot meaningfully consider the philosophy of physics if you don’t first understand the physics.
> Oops.
Did you fall, or something?
> Quantum mechanics is easily misunderstood. Perhaps owing to the fact it cannot be easily (or actually) understood.
But we aren’t talking about the entirety of quantum mechanics. We are talking about one specific and common misconception of it. And that particular misconception arises primarily because the words “observation” and “measurement” mean something different to a physicist than they do to a lay person.
> So despite the devastation you have wreaked on the strawman argument that I have besmirched the good name of Niels Bohr, the actual issue I am discussing remains, unperturbed.
No, I responded to two specific things you claimed. One, your claim that physicists commonly suffer from the misconception that conscious observation plays a special role in quantum mechanics. Two, that Niels Bohr deliberately confused the two. The first claim is laughably wrong and makes it very clear you have no experience with the actual physics community; and the latter is demonstrably false and demonstrates your propensity to make shit up for some reason that I can’t comprehend.
You keep defending your claims, but whenever I make any reference to those claims you call it a strawman. That just makes you dishonest.
> I don't identify you as a neopostmodernist to "make myself feel better", I do it to accurately describe your position and practices, or at least the intellectual milieu and time period of your reasoning.
You don’t know enough about my positions and practices to call me anything, since the only things I’ve addressed are whether physicists possess a particular misconception, the origin of that misconception, and what words Bohr used. This would be like watching someone walk down the street and diagnosing them with heart disease.
> The problem is that "clarifying [...] the words used to talk about" any subject, let alone the supremely difficult subjects of QM or consciousness, doesn't actually work as well as you insist it should.
But it does. I actually teach these things, I deal with this all the time. In this particular instance, about the very specific and precise thing we’re discussing, it works quite well. In fact, you can see it working in this very Reddit post, among others on the subject. Your imagination — or perhaps your own confusion — notwithstanding.
> Personally, I don't suffer from this problem, because my philosophy resolves the nature of consciousness more completely than neopostmodern philosophies do.
How pretentious of you. This attitude is certainly consistent with your previous assertion that Einstein and Bohr weren’t qualified to talk about quantum mechanics.
> I can understand the parallels between quantum uncertainty and existential uncertainty, and recognize the meaning of those parallels without conflating the subjects.
And yet you’ve demonstrated that you clearly don’t understand the physics (see your claim that this year’s Nobel prize has nothing to do with interpretations of quantum mechanics). So sorry if I doubt your ability to see parallels so crystally clear when you don’t even understand one of them in the first place.
> But the problem remains, even for me, when I attempt to discuss these issues with other people, and the more neopostmodernist they are, the more cantankerous they get.
It’s more likely that people who actually understand the physics get frustrated when you, who clearly don’t, make baseless and false claims about something you don’t understand, and then accuse them of inventing strawmen when they correct your errors. You aren’t arguing honestly. Hell, you’re still defending your claim about Bohr instead of admitting that you took this shitty article’s awful summary of his argument as a stand in for his actual words, and you’re too proud to admit you made a mistake.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments