Will social science morph into physics and economics, using Big Data?

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 28, 2018

Culture, Intelligent Design, Mind, Psychology}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Might that be the final resolution of the otherwise intractable scandal of social “science,” which is increasingly just political screeds?

In 2014, Stephen Guy of the University of Minnesota and his colleagues described how people move to avoid hitting each other when interacting in large groups. “Human crowds,” they wrote, “bear a striking resemblance to interacting particle systems.” Pedestrians move, the researchers observed, like negatively-charged electrons, which repel each other more strongly as they approach, with one key difference. Unlike electrons, pedestrians anticipate when a collision is imminent and change their motion beforehand by swinging wide to avoid a crash.

Using this knowledge, the researchers derived a mathematical rule for an electron-like “repulsive force” between any two pedestrians, but based on time-to-collision rather than distance. This allowed the researchers to correctly predict how a moving crowd bunches up when funneled into a narrow passage, or spontaneously forms directional lanes, as when football fans leave a stadium headed for different exits. Other sociophysicists have applied similar principles to auto traffic

…

We are still a long way from the elegance and power of famous results in physics like Isaac Newton’s equation F = ma or Einstein’s E = mc^2. But it took millennia for physicists to derive these insights. Maybe in only a few more centuries, we will become like Hari Seldon, able to better understand ourselves through quantitative science.Sidney Perkowitz, “Sociophysics and Econophysics, the Future of Social Science?” at JSTOR Daily

In principle, it might lead to insights. In practice, unfortunately, it will probably turn out to be bunk cubed because of a felt need to corrupt the data to advance various agendas.

It would be good to delegitimize social “sciences” before any more of these kinds of incidents:
Mortarboard mob “disappears” respected mathematician. (His findings were mathematically correct but did not suit a social science agenda.)

See also: Broad agreement that politics is strangling the social sciences

and

Social sciences are now merely a political party

Comments

I have several points on my mind. Let's start with this one. ba, t 9 you wrote,
random.dent, ‘argument from authority’ is a fallacious response to the simple question I asked you. If you do not answer properly I will seek to have you banned for trolling.
Appeal to Authority Explanation An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
And yet your standard mode of argument is to appeal to authority: Von Neumann said this, Wertheim said that, Bruce Gordon said this, Weinberg said that, etc. If appeal to authority is a fallacy, then your quotes are not valid arguments. Do you see here that you are being inconsistent, invoking your authorities as supporting your arguments but then accusing others of a fallacy when they invoke authority. (And what happened to random.dent? Did he leave, or did he actually get banned? That would be ludicrous if that were the case. )jdk_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Since Griffiths held to decoherence and yet decoherence is now shown, empirically, to be false, exactly why do you think I should listen to what Griffiths said in his 'old' textbook over what the empirical evidence now says?
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/will-social-science-morph-into-physics-and-economics-using-big-data/#comment-665680
Contrary to how you and other atheists treat science, as if empirical evidence does not matter, empirical evidence rules in science. Opinions of supposed 'authorities' are useless in the face of contradictory evidence:
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Even Einstein himself is not above empirical reproach (and was empirically refuted, among other things, in his stance against 'spooky action at a distance'):
Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4
bornagain77_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Have you read what Griffith's has to say on this yet?jdk_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

jdk, so you admit, contrary to Darwinian presuppositions, that free will is real. You also admit that free will, which is a defining attribute of the conscious mind and/or Agent Causality, is NOT "incompatible with QM". Yet you want to hold that "Consciousness is NOT necessary for the wave function to collapse."? And exactly how do you propose to separate consciousness from free will? Conceding free will to QM and yet trying to say consciousness is not necessary for explaining QM is like trying to say you can have a circle that is not round. Every time you see a circle you will find roundness. Likewise every time you find free will you will find a conscious mind somewhere. As to consciousness and wave collapse, All this was pretty much gone over in the previous thread where it was erroneously claimed, by an atheist, that the abstract infinite dimensional wave function could have physicality, See: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/at-scientific-american-quantum-theory-does-not-require-a-conscious-observer/#comment-664770 also see: , the infinite regress of the Von Neumann chain, that must necessarily terminate with a conscious observer (and I would further argue that it must necessarily terminate with God as the ‘unobserved observer’), is discussed starting at the 2:00 minute mark of the following video: The Measurement Problem https://youtu.be/qB7d5V71vUE?t=122 https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/at-scientific-american-quantum-theory-does-not-require-a-conscious-observer/#comment-665034 also see: as you can see from von Neumann’s quote, the exact place where ‘observation’, and/or “wave collapse”, is said to occur is arbitrary. Von Neumann goes on to note the arbitrariness of ‘observation’ in quantum mechanics, (in the following quote) https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/at-scientific-american-quantum-theory-does-not-require-a-conscious-observer/#comment-665052bornagain77_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

And I re-read the link on the "free-will loophole." All of those experiments are confirming that local realism is not supported by the evidence. I, and more importantly Griffiths, accept that conclusion. But that's not the issue under consideration, so the link isn't relevant to this discussion.jdk_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

I don't give a $%$^%$ about what Jerry Coyne believes. This is the only internet forum I participate in, and has been for years, and you are the person I am having a discussion with right now. And I'm not trying to convince you, or even argue for, the position that free will is incompatible with QM. Here is the point that you seem to fail to understand, or acknowledge: 1. Consciousness and free will exist. 2. Consciousness is NOT necessary for the wave function to collapse.jdk_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Well jdk, if you are not a brick wall and you really do believe in free will perhaps you should be on Coyne's blog trying to convince him that Darwinism and free will (and consciousness) are compatible instead of being on this blog trying to convince me, minus any empirical evidence on your part, that free will is incompatible with quantum theory. Again: Quantum mechanics: Pushing the “free-will loophole” back to 7.8 billion years ago – September 14, 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pushing-the-free-will-loophole-back-to-7-8-billion-years-ago/bornagain77_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

This is stupid. I believe in free will. When did I say I didn't? But we are not discussing my personal beliefs. We are discussing the range of thought about interpretations of QM, and specifically whether "measurements" necessarily require a conscious observation. And even more specifically, we are (or at least once were) discussing the opinions of David Griffith, well-respected expert on QM, who is not a realist nor a Wignerian who believes consciousness is necessary for the collapse of the wave function. Griffith seems to agree with the position I am describing. Have you read the Appendices to his book yet?jdk_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

If you don't believe in free will then why do you argue as if you can be persuaded by logical arguments? If all your thoughts are determined by the atoms of your brain, and you have no control over them, I might as well debate a brick wall.bornagain77_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

We are not discussing Darwinism, nor pantheism, which is something I discussed once, but do not "believe in". Also, as I have said (but you ignore), the issue of whether consciousness and free will exist is separate from the issue of whether consciousness is necessary for the wave function to collapse. You are tilting at windmills that are not part of the subject of this discussion.jdk_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

jdk, interesting comment coming from someone who defends Darwinian theory as if his life depended on it. You do realize, as Weinberg himself pointed out, that free will is incompatible with Darwin's theory do you not?
“the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”,,, ,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
Moreover jdk, If you personally believe, via pantheism, in free will AND Darwin's theory at the same time, you are virtually alone in your opinion that the two are compatible with each other. I know of no major evolutionary biologist in America who has explicitly endorsed the reality of free will. In fact, Jerry Coyne and Michael Egnor got into a minor scuffle over that issue a few years back.
~~Misunderstanding~~ Understanding Jerry Coyne on Free Will Michael Egnor - January 5, 2014 https://evolutionnews.org/2014/01/misunderstandin/ Dr. Michael Egnor: Do Humans Have Free Will? Posted on October 14, 2015 On this episode of ID the Future, Dr. Michael Egnor and Casey Luskin continue their conversation, speaking on Dr. Egnor’s recent experience in an online debate on free will with evolutionary biologist Dr. Jerry Coyne. Listen in as Dr. Egnor explains why the argument against free will is self-refuting and shows how determinism as a theory in physics is dead. https://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/10/dr-michael-egnor-do-humans-have-free-will/
bornagain77_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

There is a distinction here worth mentioning, although it won't make a difference to ba. In general, one can accept the existence of consciousness and free will, and be a theist, and still not accept the interpretation that consciousness is necessary for the wave function to collapse. These are two different issues.jdk_{September 30, 2018
September
09
Sep
30
30
2018
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

jdk, since he rejects free will and/or mind, he is in, like all atheists before him, a epistemologically self-refuting position. I don't care if his position is 'more nuanced' than the realist approach or not. The denial of free will, i.e. an thus the denial of the instrumentalist approach, is simply a logically untenable position. PERIOD! To reject the reality of free will is to reject rationality and reason altogether. (see CS Lewis, The Argument from Reason) Moreover, my options held out this possible option,,, "C. He was not committed to either approach"., ,,, so I'm not absolutely committed to him using the realist approach. I'm just committed to him using some "non mind' approach. I only know for sure, via your quote, that he belittled Wigner and thus, by default, rejects the instrumentalist approach. And again, I can empirically support, via Zeilinger, the instrumentalist approach. Whereas, you got nada. zilch, the goose egg! Despite your usual stupid games, It ain't hard.bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

But he is not a realist. You have, as I have said, an over-simplified and false dichotomy about the subject. But you obviously don't care to study the situation, so I'll quit. But your whole schtick about reporting random.dent for trolling for not answering a question that you yourself won't investigate is ludicrous, and you have been exposed.jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Whatever. He either believes Mind precedes material reality or he does not. The quote you already provided,,,
but at least it avoids the stultifying solipsism of Wigner and others, who persuaded themselves that it is the intervention of human consciousness that constitutes a measurement in quantum mechanics.
,,, proves that he rejects mind and/or free will preceding material reality. Moreover, especially with the recent results of Zeilinger and company closing the 'free will loophole', I can appeal directly to empirical evidence to support my claim whereas all atheists can do is go off into far fetched ad hoc proposals to try to 'explain away' what they themselves often admit are the 'counter-intuitive' results of quantum mechanics.bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

I can find a quote in the appendix that proves you're wrong. Can you find it? I'll give you 24 hours. :-)jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT}

No I'm not.bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

You re wrong about him. If you won't bother to read, that is not my problem.jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Since he invoked decoherence and belittled Wigner's 'consciousness' interpretation, I said Realist. You disagreed. I challenged you to provide another approach that would explain the measurement problem. You punted and said his approach was 'more nuanced' than either the instrumentalist or realist approach. Interestingly, you yourself have not read the entire book yet, and yet you somehow mysteriously know that his approach is 'more nuanced' than the two overarching approaches that were outlined by Weinberg himself. I'll stick with him falling into the Realist camp. As to trolling jdk, you, the troll, can try your luck with that. Something tells me the result is not going to be nearly what you think it will be. Perhaps I will help you out and report myself trolling you , the troll :)bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

ba, the question is what does Griffith think: that is the question you asked. He's someone who has much more actual experience with what quantum mechanics actually does than any of us, and his thoughts are much more nuanced than the dichotomous demarcation that you insist is the only choice. At 9 you actually wrote, to random.dent,
If you do not answer properly I will seek to have you banned for trolling.
And at 10, you wrote,
random.dent, if you need help answering the simple question that I asked you, I will make it much simpler for you and make it multiple choice for you:
Griffiths held to, A. Instrumentalist approach B. Realist approach C. He was not committed to either approach D. You do not know what approach he was committed to
So what is your answer to the questions you asked random.dent? I even sent you source material to help you find the answer. And do you think I would be justified in reporting you for trolling if you won't answer?jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

jdk, who retreats to some form of shadowy pantheism every time he is challenged on free will and consciousness being incompatible with the reductive material inherent within Darwinism, characteristically, and disingenuously, wants to make the demarcation between possible approaches in quantum mechanics, i.e. mind or no mind, harder than it need be. Despite how intimidating some of the mathematics in quantum mechanics can be, it really can ONLY be two possible options: Empirical evidence, as usual, greatly helps cut through the fog of the complicated mathematics:
Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this: 1. Consciousness either precedes 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. Five intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Double Slit, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): --- Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: 5 Experiments – video https://youtu.be/t5qphmi8gYE
It should be noted, during the middle ages in Europe, when the foundations of modern science were being laid, consciousness was certainly not a problem for the founders of modern science:
How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015 Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,, But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,, Such a view appalled many physicists,,, Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,, Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,, when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,, https://aeon.co/essays/how-and-why-exactly-did-consciousness-become-a-problem
bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

re 28: ba's demarcation is overly simplified and presents a false dichotomy. Maybe you ought to read the material by Griffiths and see what he has to say: read both the Preface and the Appendices.jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

It would be interesting to have someone like random.dent respond to ba77's claim. Even though ba77 is not an expert, it is clear that either he proposes the correct demarcations, or he doesn't. If the latter, then the experts can easily chime in and explain in what way the demarcation is wrong. If the former, then ba77 seems to have a point.EricMH_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

What does Griffith think? That is the question you accused random.dent of trolling because he wouldn't answer it, isn't it? If you read the material I've suggested, you might find that the situation is a bit more nuanced, at least to Griffith, than you think. If you won't read the material and respond, I'll report you for trolling!!!! (Just kidding, of course: you can do whatever you want.)jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

jdk, it ain't hard, there are only two approaches possible, mind or no mind, Instrumentalist or Realist.bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

I only know the little I read online. Perhaps you ought to read and figure out what he thinks for yourself. Read the Preface and the Appendix, and see what you think.jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

So he rejects 'consciousness' and/or free will, and in an unsatisfied manner invokes decohence, but does not hold to the realist approach? Really??? Can you be so kind to name exactly what approach he leans to then, (besides "shut up and calculate" :) ), so as to solve the measurement problem discussed by Weinberg and InspiringPhilosophy ?
“David Mermin once summarized a popular attitude towards quantum theory as “Shut up and calculate!”. We suggest an alternative slogan: “Shut up and contemplate!” Lucien Hardy and Robert Spekkens, “Why Physics Needs Quantum Foundations” (2010)
bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

ba, I suggest you read the full appendix of Griffith's book, as I don't believe he "leans towards realism." And I mean read for overall understanding, not just to quote mine. Also note, he, as several others I have quoted, dismiss the idea that consciousness is a necessary component of the wave collapse: that measurement is done by some macroscopic interaction, not some human "observation" as some of those videos you posted to one time seem to imply, or state.jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Our flip flopping pantheist jdk is finally useful for something,,, he cites this,,,
The measurement occurs at the moment when the microscopic system (described by the laws of quantum mechanics) interacts with the macroscopic system (described by the laws of classical mechanics) in such a way as to leave a permanent record. The macroscopic system itself is not permitted to occupy a linear combination of distinct states. I would not pretend that this is an entirely satisfactory resolution, but at least it avoids the stultifying solipsism of Wigner and others, who persuaded themselves that it is the intervention of human consciousness that constitutes a measurement in quantum mechanics. - Griffiths
Thanks jdk, that means that Griffiths invoked decoherence and thus leaned heavily towards the Realist approach. Yet Griffiths himself concedes that
"I would not pretend that this is an entirely satisfactory resolution,"
Likewise Weinberg himself is not satisfied with decoherence as a resolution to the measurement problem:
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics - Steven Weinberg - January 19, 2017 The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics? One common answer is that, in a measurement, the spin (or whatever else is measured) is put in an interaction with a macroscopic environment that jitters in an unpredictable way. For example, the environment might be the shower of photons in a beam of light that is used to observe the system, as unpredictable in practice as a shower of raindrops. Such an environment causes the superposition of different states in the wave function to break down, leading to an unpredictable result of the measurement. (This is called decoherence.) It is as if a noisy background somehow unpredictably left only one of the notes of a chord audible. But this begs the question. If the deterministic Schrödinger equation governs the changes through time not only of the spin but also of the measuring apparatus and the physicist using it, then the results of measurement should not in principle be unpredictable. So we still have to ask, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?,,, Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9 For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/
The following video also explains why decoherence does not solve the measurement problem:
The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics - (Inspiring Philosophy) - 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
Moreover, decoherence is directly refuted by empirical evidence, i.e. by "Renninger-type" experiments.
The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf The Renninger Negative Result Experiment - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0 An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment (Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment, and in the double slit experiment, the Detector can be placed at one slit during the double slit experiment and yet the photon or electron still collapses in the unobserved slit) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.[2] In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-testing_problem#Experiments etc.. etc..
And as mentioned previously, the instrumentalist approach has now been experimentally verified to be true with the recent closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company: i.e. With the recent closing of the ‘free will loop-hole’ by Anton Zeilinger and company, I now think that the ‘instrumentalist approach’ is overwhelmingly empirically confirmed to be the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics: Pushing the “free-will loophole” back to 7.8 billion years ago – September 14, 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pushing-the-free-will-loophole-back-to-7-8-billion-years-ago/
And again, Weinberg, an atheist, boils down all the various interpretations of quantum mechanics as such. The ‘realist’ and the ‘instrumentalist’ approach. Weinberg rightly rejects the realist approach because of the sheer absurdity of many worlds, (i.e. infinite parallel universes that split off from each other, etc..) and also since the realist approach does not really deal with the probabilities properly without making untenable ad hoc assumptions, (See 'many worlds' video on Youtube by inspiringphilosophy), but, on the other hand, it is interesting to note exactly why Weinberg, again an atheist, rejects the instrumentalist approach. Weinberg rejects the instrumentalist approach because having free will figure so centrally in quantum mechanics at such a deep level, undermines the Darwinian worldview from within in that instead of humans being the result of impersonal physical laws, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.” Specifically Weinberg states, “the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/
Moreover, (besides the fact that Anton Zeilinger and company have now closed the ‘free will loop-hole’ and have thus empirically confirmed the instrumentalist approach to be correct), it is simply, as a matter of logic, completely insane for Darwinists to deny the reality of their very own ‘free will’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-cat-is-back-is-quantum-theory-dead-alive-and-contradicting-itself/#comment-665388 of note: Theism solves the problem of solipsism
Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Violated, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Quantum Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature - Bruce L. Gordon - 2017 Excerpt page 295: In light of this realization, the rather startling picture that begins to seem plausible is that preserving and explaining the objective structure of appearances in light of quantum theory requires reviving a type of phenomenalism in which our perception of the physical universe is constituted by sense-data conforming to certain structural constraints, but in which there is no substantial material reality causing these sensory perceptions. This leaves us with an ontology of minds (as immaterial substances) experiencing and generating mental events and processes that, when sensory in nature, have a formal character limned by the fundamental symmetries and structures revealed in “physical” theory. That these structured sensory perceptions are not mostly of our own individual or collective human making points to the falsity of any solipsistic or social constructivist conclusion, but it also implies the need for a transcendent source and ground of our experience. As Robert Adams points out, mere formal structure is ontologically incomplete: [A] system of spatiotemporal relationships constituted by sizes, shapes, positions, and changes thereof, is too incomplete, too hollow, as it were, to constitute an ultimately real thing or substance. It is a framework that, by its very nature, needs to be filled in by something less purely formal. It can only be a structure of something of some not merely structural sort. Formally, rich as such a structure may be, it lacks too much of the reality of material thinghood. By itself, it participates in the incompleteness of abstractions. . . . [T]he reality of a substance must include something intrinsic and qualitativeover and above any formal or structural features it may possess.117 When we consider the fact that the structure of reality in fundamental physical theory is merely phenomenological and that this structure itself is hollow and non-qualitative, whereas our experience is not, the metaphysical objectivity and epistemic intersubjectivity of the enstructured qualitative reality of our experience can be seen to be best explained by an occasionalist idealism of the sort advocated by George Berkeley (1685-1753) or Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). In the metaphysical context of this kind of theistic immaterialism, the vera causa that brings coherent closure to the phenomenological reality we inhabit is always and only agent causation. The necessity of causal sufficiency is met by divine action, for as Plantinga emphasizes: [T]he connection between God’s willing that there be light and there being light is necessary in the broadly logical sense: it is necessary in that sense that if God wills that p, p occurs. Insofar as we have a grasp of necessity (and we do have a grasp of necessity), we also have a grasp of causality when it is divine causality that is at issue. I take it this is a point in favor of occasionalism, and in fact it constitutes a very powerful advantage of occasionalism. 118
bornagain77_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

I'm late to the party here, but I see that the 1995 edition of Griffith's books is online. (Source: http://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%20to%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf) The first paragraphs of the Preface, page vii, are interesting, and directs the reader who is interested in what it all means to consult a short Appendix, but he also says "I do not believe one can intelligently discuss what quantum mechanics means until one has a firm sense of what quantum mechanics does". And on pages 382-383:
Schrodinger regarded this as patent nonsense [the idea that the cat was neither dead or alive until observed], and I think most physicists would agree with him. There is something absurd about the very idea of a macroscopic object being in a linear combination of two palpably different states. An electron can be in a linear combination of spin up and spin down, but a cat simply cannot be in a linear combination of alive and dead. How are we to reconcile this with the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics? The most widely accepted answer is that the triggering of the Geiger counter constitutes the "measurement," in the sense of the statistical interpretation, not the intervention of a human observer. It is the essence of a measurement that some macroscopic system is affected (the Geiger counter, in this instance). The measurement occurs at the moment when the microscopic system (described by the laws of quantum mechanics) interacts with the macroscopic system (described by the laws of classical mechanics) in such a way as to leave a permanent record. The macroscopic system itself is not permitted to occupy a linear combination of distinct states. I would not pretend that this is an entirely satisfactory resolution, but at least it avoids the stultifying solipsism of Wigner and others, who persuaded themselves that it is the intervention of human consciousness that constitutes a measurement in quantum mechanics. Part of the problem is the word "measurement" itself, which certainly carries an suggestion of human involvement. Heisenberg proposed the word "event", which might be preferable. But I'm afraid "measurement" is so ingrained by now that we're stuck with it. And, in the end, no manipulation of the terminology can completely exorcise this mysterious ghost.
[My emphasis]jdk_{September 29, 2018
September
09
Sep
29
29
2018
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply