Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

LNC: “Yes or No”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Let’s clear up this law of noncontradiction issue between StephenB and eigenstate once and for all. StephenB asks eigenstate: “Can the planet Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense? That’s a “yes or no” question eigenstate. How do you answer it?

Further update: Eigenstate has run for cover.
The genesis of this post was StephenB’s accusation that eigenstate refused to concede the law of noncontradiction: “For you [i.e.,eigenstate], the law of non-contradiction is a “useful tool” except on those occasions when it reveals the poverty of your non-arguments, at which time, it can be safely discounted. That position alone renders you unfit for rational dialogue.”

Surely not, I thought to myself. No one can argue logically and at the same time ever deny the law of noncontradiction, because the law of noncontradiction underlies ALL logical arguments. So I put this post up to give eigenstate a chance to refute StephenB’s accusation. I know eigenstate came back onto this site after I put up this post, because he commented on another string after this post went up. Yet he refused to answer the question. I can only conclude from this that StephenB is correct. Eigenstate and his ilk are not acting in good faith. They feel free to spew their nonsense, but when they are confronted with a challenge they cannot meet they run away. He is not, as StephenB points out, fit for rational dialogue, and you will not see him on this site again.

Another update: At another site Eigenstate says he responded here, which is an outrageous lie. At that same site he put up an idiot’s answer to the question which is not worth responding to. Suffice it to say it was neither “yes” nor “no.”

Comments
The REPLY gets a number though . . . whadzup?kairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Weird, I thought it would be below, it is above, and no number appears. Bugs/features to your heart's content. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
mike 1962, you are right on all counts. Evidence does not lead one to irrational conclusions about logic; irrational assumptions about logic lead one to interpret evidence irrationally. So when an irrational, postmodern scientist intrudes his irrational assumptions on the evidence, he will draw irrational conclusions such as the absurd notion that new evidence could invalidate reason’s rules.StephenB
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Clavdivs, the laws of non-contradiction and causality inform all of science, quantum mechanics included. Indeed, QM would not even have been conceived (discovered) except by honoring those laws as scientists interpreted evidence. In other words, they assumed (rightly) going in, that nothing can exist and not exist at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. They also assumed (rightly) that nothing can begin to exist without a cause. Their logic informed the evidence; the evidence did not inform their logic. Please take note of the point--evidence does not inform the rules of right reason; the rules of right reason inform evidence. The reverse principle is also true: Evidence does not lead one to irrational conclusions about logic; irrational assumptions about logic lead one to interpret evidence irrationally. So when an irrational, postmodern scientist intrudes his irrational assumptions on the evidence, he will draw irrational conclusions such as the absurd notion that new evidence could invalidate reason's rules.StephenB
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Not true Max, as KF points out below.Barry Arrington
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS: nullasalus is right — some interpretations of QM allow that a particular entity may neither exist, nor not-exist, but is in a superposition of existence and non-existence.
Of course he is. I never said he wasn't. But you're missing my point: interpretations of QM are not QM. I just wanted that to be crystal clear.
Nullasalus: I think there’s a problem when people regard axioms, certainly laws of logic, as the sort of things which can get proved or disproved in the lab.
Well put. I find it humorous when people interpret science in a way that undermines the very rationality they are using to interpret science. (And no matter how much non-rationality they are willing to accept about reality, they always manage to sneak their own rationality back into the process, at both ends.)mike1962
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
So did you observe that a basketball spontaneously appears from nothing, uncaused, into this room each and every time? Well, no. You never observed that, nor can you. You may suggest that that’s what’s happening. In a way, that may be compatible with what you’re seeing. But that’s not an observation itself.
I think you are just defining the problem away. By definition you cannot observe two states simultaneously, and by definition you cannot observe tunnelling. But you are left with other, perhaps unspoken, axioms violated. You preserve the definitional rules of logic, but you are still left with physical phenomena that violate our ordinary understanding of how matter exists and behaves.Petrushka
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
I find it the height of irony that materialists/atheists, since they dogmatically operate under the reductive materialist framework, despite falsification of local realism (reductive materialism) itself by quantum mechanics (Aspect; Zeilinger) would appeal to quantum superposition to try to undermine transcendent 'laws of logic', for quantum mechanics has revealed, far more than General Relativity has, that we live in a universe governed by higher dimensional transcendent 'laws of logic'.
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss & Riemann – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ 3D to 4D shift - Carl Sagan - video with notes Excerpt from Notes: The state-space of quantum mechanics is an infinite-dimensional function space. Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV9wA
For instance in Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment we find a clear example of 'laws of logic' dictating how reality itself will behave:
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
Or even in the Schroedinger Equation itself we find:
Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation - Granville Sewell - audio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012
At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation;
‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.
i.e. the Materialist/Atheist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such transcendent 'logical' control of our temporal, material, reality,,,
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
of note; 'the Word' is translated from the Greek word ‘Logos’. Logos happens to be the word from which we derive our modern word ‘Logic’. Further note: Moreover advances in quantum mechanics have allowed the argument for God from consciousness to be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.
further notes:
Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011 Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011 http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 Wave function Excerpt “wave functions form an abstract vector space”,,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1
Thus the ‘necessary consciousness’ that is collapsing the wave packet to each central point of unique conscious observation in the universe, is found to be a ‘infinite dimensional consciousness’ which possesses the attribute of control over infinite information to bring the infinite dimensional/infinite information state to quantized state of 1 or 0, i.e. God!
Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
bornagain77
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
ME: My understanding is that the thread was reserved for ES to make a reply as comment no 1. In that context -- with no malice -- my own comment and one by BA were removed. I went to church after that and apart from sometime later y/day, came by again this morning. I was astonished at what transpired overnight, and my response is below. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Hi Bruce David- Please visit http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/ Elizabeth was asking about you....Joe
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Bruce David, usefulness is a criterion that matters if you need to determine whether the waking state and the dream state should have equal priority. The waking state recognizes, assesses, and interprets the dream state; not the reverse. So when we prioritize the waking state as a source of information, we find it useful. Information about rocks gained in the waking state meant that in the dream state, you expected the rock to hurt. The reason dreams seem so real at the time is that he relationship between the dream state and the waking state is hierarchical. the former depends on the latter for the content of its reveries and can only reflect on the latter in a symbolic way.News
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT
Hi nullasalus I'm aware of many interpretations of QM. C: It seems to me our common sense notions of non-contradiction do not apply neatly to this situation. n: Nor to the hypothetical basketball scenario – so long as we’re using the stated interpretation. But if that’s not the only interpretation available, then we have a problem. I agree - a problem worth looking into! As I see it, for now, an "actual" superposition of existence/non-existence remains a live possibility - one that may not sit easily with the LNC. n: Likewise, there’s no putting logic and axioms aside entirely, then ‘doing science’ and crafting logic and axioms from what we find. The logic and the axioms are always there with science – remove them, and you’ve removed science along with them. Also, is your logic really updated? Aye, there's the rub. Identity and LNC are indeed the bedrock of rationality -- as currently understood. Nonetheless, logicians are developing paraconsistent logical systems that are not exploded by contradiction; maybe such will form part of the future of rationality in physics. I don't claim to possess any final answers here. I'm open to possibilities. CheersCLAVDIVS
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
PS: Since we are plainly dealing with those who will gleefully snip words out of context and maliciously twist them to try to deride, denigrate and dismiss --as we saw so plainly across the week and weekend past, let me explain. Do, be patient; we are dealing with willful, hostility driven twisters at sites like AtBC and Anti Evo, not fair minded and civil participants in dialogue. By 1905, quantum phenomena had been observed for decades -- spectra, specific heat capacity variation with temperature etc -- but no one had a good explanation until the UV catastrophe was addressed by Planck in 1900. But his suggestion was controversial and deemed dubious: quantisation of energy in the radiation field of a cavity radiator. It is Einstein's use of the quanisation to explain the threshold aspect of the photoelectric effect that established Quantum as here to stay.kairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
PS: Ari in Metaphysics, 1011b.kairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to OBFUSCATE. To clear up the distractive quantum arguments and whatnot, let us recall that QM is expressed using equations and based on observations by an observer. Proverbially, scratched out with chalk on chalk-boards, then scratched out with pens and finally published in Journals. Are the symbols, relationship, rules of interpretation and manipulation and placement in those equations BOTH there AND not there in the same sense and time? Are the meter indications, dots in a quantum double slit experiment, lab equipment, and objects under investigation both there and not there in the same sense and time? Is the physicist-observer there and not there in the same sense and time? Is the knowledge base s/he is using there and not there in the same sense and time, and do the symbols, terms, rules, relationships etc that he or she has studied both mean and not mean what they are commonly held to mean? Do you not see the chaos of self-referential absurdities that stem from denial of the principle of non-contradiction, that if one asserts A AND NOT-A in the same sense and time, then one ends with as a logical consequence that any and every assertion follows as having truth value, True? That is, by swallowing the premise of a core self-contradiction in our reasoning, we reduce ourselves to increasingly losing the ability to discern the true from the false, save where we unconsciously revert to the old fashioned way of thinking. Let's call it straight: reduction to absurdity by self referential incoherence, presented as wisdom. "Professing themselves to be wise . . . " And, no, it is not just a matter of imposing arbitrary rules of manipulating symbols and calling them axioms. The law of non-contradiction was a matter of reality and the human condition of experience of having to live with it, long before it was ever reduced to symbols. Indeed, it is a case of self-evident truth. Truth, that, in light of our experience of the world and understanding, we see as not just what happens to be so but could have been otherwise, but instead what must be so, on pain of obvious and blatant in-your-face absurdities and contradictions leading to radical chaos of incoherence. I assure you, that the self same ones appealing to quantum double slit exercises, entanglement, wave functions and probabilities, etc, would never dream of walking out into a busy highway on the assumption that the cars and trucks zipping by were and were not there in the same sense and time. They cannot live with the pretty arguments on the ground, a sure sign that something is drastically wrong. Look, a few days ago, I was looking up at planets in the night sky, as I have since my childhood when I first wondered about the Evening Star. The planet Jupiter is there to be seen in the night sky, along with its companions, as wandering stars -- planetos means wanderer -- that is what drew them to the attention of our remote ancestors, these were the moving stars that wandered against the backdrop of the so-called fixed stars. So, when you see anyone trotting out obfuscatory rhetoric to make it seem it is both there and not there in the same sense, that person is playing games with blue smoke and mirrors, or has been enmeshed in the mind-game webs of those who are. Indeed, I am now inclining to the view that that is a root problem, people are getting tangled up in mind-game webs spun by those who hope to profit from our confusion. If you are dealing with someone willing to try to argue that Jupiter is there and not there at the same time and sense, and feel mental webs reaching out for you, run! So, let us get back to the original statement of the first principles of right reason, from Aristotle:
. . . if it is impossible at the same time to affirm and deny a thing truly, it is also impossible for contraries to apply to a thing at the same time; either both must apply in a modified sense, or one in a modified sense and the other absolutely. Nor indeed can there be any intermediate between contrary statements, but of one thing we must either assert or deny one thing, whatever it may be. This will be plain if we first define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.
Notice how carefully Ari spoke of what we say in relation to the world of things, and in regard to existence or non existence and conformity of assertion with reality. He was not speaking about "things" which cannot exist, but of a world of things that are, or may be, i.e., of candidate or actual members of occupied sets. It is in that context that to say what is, and what is not is not is accurate to reality, reality as we or another intelligence may experience it. When he therefore argues: Socrates is a man Men are mortal _____________ Socrates is mortal . . . he is speaking of a class that has actual members: men, similarly, mortals. Men, for various reasons, are mortal. Mortals, per observation are or may become, dead. A given case --Socrates -- is a man, so he is also mortal. This is not a matter of clouds of confusion and quantum superposition, this is a matter of the nature of what it is to belong to a set, and what it is to have certain relationships of sets. Without these relationships, Mathematics becomes impossible, and the whole project of physics, including quantum physics, collapses. Kindly, explain to me, what happens to:
E_k [photoelectron] = h*f - phi Where also, E-photon = h*f And where also, save f exceeds a certain level, no photoemission is possible. (Onlookers, I choose this case as it is the case that established quantum mechanics, and it is the case that was a key factor in Einstein's Nobel Prize.)
. . . if there are no rules of mathematical reasoning, phsyical reasoning and objective observation and measurement, in light of reality, like this. KFkairosfocus
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
Barry, he must have been in moderation for this thread because the only way to give him first right of reply is to moderate all comments for this thread until his appears and can be published first.MaxEntropy
February 13, 2012
February
02
Feb
13
13
2012
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
I was correctly taught that an undisturbed photon passes through both slits, which is demonstrated by its forming a predictable interference pattern. Are you aware of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics? Do you know how they - even on an amateur level, even for only a few - differ from one another? Do you realize that if there are other viable interpretations for that pattern, and if there is no experiment which can (currently, and possibly in principle) decide which of those interpretations is right or most likely, what you were 'correctly taught' is an interpretation - not the truth of why that pattern formed? Again, this is similar to saying, "Well, every time I go into that room, a basketball appears, uncaused, from nothingness. If that's what's happening, then that is precisely what I should be seeing each and every time." Which is great - unless there are alternate interpretations of the data that would also explain the outcome. It seems to me our common sense notions of non-contradiction do not apply neatly to this situation. Nor to the hypothetical basketball scenario - so long as we're using the stated interpretation. But if that's not the only interpretation available, then we have a problem. Why shouldn’t we use such empirical findings to refine and improve our methods of logic? I suppose one reason would be, "For the same reasons we don't embrace solipsism even though it could explain all of our experience: because there are other explanations that are available, and which may well be superior." Likewise, there's no putting logic and axioms aside entirely, then 'doing science' and crafting logic and axioms from what we find. The logic and the axioms are always there with science - remove them, and you've removed science along with them. Also, is your logic really updated? Is your opinion on the truth of, say... common descent, "Well, we can't rule out the possibility that common descent is both true and false at the same time, in the same sense"? (And before anyone asks, I accept common descent. But it's a way to sharpen the point here.)nullasalus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
To nullasalus @ 13.3.1.1.2 I was correctly taught that an undisturbed photon passes through both slits, which is demonstrated by its forming a predictable interference pattern. However, if you place a detector to see which slit the photon passes through, hey presto! it only goes through one slit and does not form an interference pattern. In the first case, with no detectors, does the photon exist at slit 1? It seems to me our common sense notions of non-contradiction do not apply neatly to this situation. Why shouldn't we use such empirical findings to refine and improve our methods of logic? CheersCLAVDIVS
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, Ah, good question. It can be said that that person both does and does not still exist, but not, however, in the same sense.Bruce David
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
Barry,
And as Dr. Johnson said when refuting Berkeley over 200 years ago, “I refute it thus!” [metaphorically kicking Jupiter]. Idealism is just as useless now as it was then.
I had a dream the other night. I dreampt that I kicked a rock and it hurt. Then I woke up and realized that the rock didn’t exist except in my mind, even though when I was in the dream, it was as real to me as Dr. Johnson’s was to him. I am after the truth. Usefulness is not a criterion that matters much in that quest.Bruce David
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
I beg your pardon, Stephen. I didn't see the "in the same sense" in your original question. My mistake.Bruce David
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
To clarify, 'Somewhat strange' meaning in terms of formula. 'More mundane' meaning 'what's actually observed'. It's like walking into a room, and each time you walk in there's a basketball there. You never see anyone put a basketball in the room. You have the room completely secured, and you take the basketball out each time. Yet each time you go in, basketball. So did you observe that a basketball spontaneously appears from nothing, uncaused, into this room each and every time? Well, no. You never observed that, nor can you. You may suggest that that's what's happening. In a way, that may be compatible with what you're seeing. But that's not an observation itself.nullasalus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
Evaluating evidence without axioms? Probably not. Well, then that's a pretty big problem. You say that evidence 'can lead to modifying ones axioms'. But at no point is the evidence of quantum physics "We observed X both existing and not existing at the exact same time", even with the more macroscopic experiments. The best we ever get are somewhat strange, but more mundane results, we give mathematical descriptions of those results, and we interpret from there. But it's not as if there aren't LNC compatible interpretations available - so what's the point of giving them up? The answer had better be something more than "well if you retain them, reality seems weird".nullasalus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
When communicating in this blog, I am constrained to the use of the English language. This does not imply any particular metaphysical position, only that I must use the structures inherent in language to communicate.
Of course we are constrained by language. And what does that conventional language construct convey? Well, it conveys the concept of an existing planet, something that is there and that we can talk about. So we can just slightly rephrase the initial question to talk about what most people understand as the existing object or what normal language conveys when we discuss an object, and the substance of the initial question stands. Our language isn't perfect to convey everything. I agree on that point. But in this case I think the very fact that the description of the alleged non-existence is self-referential is noteworthy and should at least give pause. Now we could suppose that our language tricks us into thinking that these things actually exist, but that these things are in fact non-existent until someone observes them. All these new planets we are discovering, new species discovered in the deep sea, all these things just pop into existence when they get observed. But wait a minute. What is it again exactly that is being observed? Well it is something -- some thing. Why would something that wasn't there suddenly be there when someone starts observing? If we are just "observing" in the abstract, then there is no rational reason why some things should pop into existence and not others. On the other hand, if we are observing in the concrete - namely observing a particular object, like Jupiter - then the very act of the observing belies the fact that we are observing "something." That something is, by necessity, real and existing.Eric Anderson
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Well, I'm right about there being interpretations (but who was denying that?) - but I think mike is right that interpretations and QM itself are distinct things. If that's the case, then no, you learned wrong in high school that "the photon neither exists nor does not exist at slit 1". What you have is an equation that describes and predicts the behavior - saying "it neither exists nor does not exist" isn't something observed. It's an interpretation - maybe even a popular one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics gives an overview of some (and I think, not all) of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, and I don't think it's correct that the 'many-worlds' interpretation is the only one which avoids a LNC violation. I think there's a problem when people regard axioms, certainly laws of logic, as the sort of things which can get proved or disproved in the lab.nullasalus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
nullasalus is right -- some interpretations of QM allow that a particular entity may neither exist, nor not-exist, but is in a superposition of existence and non-existence. At high-school I learned that a single photon really can go through two separate slits at the same time. Does the photon exist, or not-exist, at slit 1? The answer is: neither. To my mind this does cast some doubt on the law of non contradiction. As far as I recall the only interpretation of QM that allows all entities to actually exist is the "many-worlds" interpretation. This really means "infinite worlds", as I understand it, which seems to me to be as much of a metaphysical absurdity as violating the LNC. CheersCLAVDIVS
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT
Evaluating evidence without axioms? Probably not. But evidence can lead to modifying ones axioms. Plane geometry, for example, does not describe reality on the surface of sphere, and more complex geometries are required for other surfaces. The axioms required to rationalize quantum superposition and quantum tunnelling are not the same as the axioms we derive from everyday experience.Petrushka
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Petrushka:
If one axiomatically asserts that Jupiter exists, then it cannot axiomatically not exist. But physical objects do not exist axiomatically. Their existence is assumed as a result of empirical evidence, and physics currently suggests that such evidence is probabilistic.
Nominated for the "Elizabeth Liddle Memorial Goal Post Redefinition" award.Charles
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
But physical objects do not exist axiomatically. Their existence is assumed as a result of empirical evidence, and physics currently suggests that such evidence is probabilistic. So you're evaluating the evidence without any axioms?nullasalus
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Interpretations of QM are not QM. Schrodinger came up with his famous Cat to show why the Copenhagen interpretation violated our common sense and intuition. But the bottom line is, the interpretations are not QM. Just want to make that crystal clear.mike1962
February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply