From Tim Maudlin at PBS Nova blog:
Many questions about the nature of reality cannot be properly pursued without contemporary physics. Inquiry into the fundamental structure of space, time and matter must take account of the theory of relativity and quantum theory. Philosophers accept this. In fact, several leading philosophers of physics hold doctorates in physics. Yet they chose to affiliate with philosophy departments rather than physics departments because so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been “shut up and calculate”: solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean.
…
If your goal is only to calculate, this might be sufficient. But understanding existing theories and formulating new ones requires more. Einstein arrived at the theory of relativity by reflecting on conceptual problems rather than on empirical ones. He was primarily bothered by explanatory asymmetries in classical electromagnetic theory. Physicists before Einstein knew, for instance, that moving a magnet in or near a coil of wire would induce an electric current in the coil. But the classical explanation for this effect appeared to be entirely different when the motion was ascribed to the magnet as opposed to the coil; the reality is that the effect depends only on the relative motion of the two. Resolving the explanatory asymmetry required rethinking the notion of simultaneity and rejecting the classical account of space and time. It required the theory of relativity.
Comprehending quantum theory is an even deeper challenge. What does quantum theory imply about “the nature of reality?” Scientists do not agree about the answer; they even disagree about whether it is a sensible question.
The problems surrounding quantum theory are not mathematical. They stem instead from the unacceptable terminology that appears in presentations of the theory. …
…
What philosophy offers to science, then, is not mystical ideas but meticulous method. Philosophical skepticism focuses attention on the conceptual weak points in theories and in arguments. It encourages exploration of alternative explanations and new theoretical approaches. … More.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
‘Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.’
Who would have thought Hawking would be in thrall to scientism, of all things barmy. Well, at least until he demonstrated his dire need of the merest trace of an innate philosophical cast of mind, by his postulation that the laws of physics could have created the universe !
The quote, “Shut up and calculate”, has an irrational fear behind it:
The irrational fear behind the ‘shut up and calculate’ quote is highlighted here
Feynman, besides not saying the infamous ‘shut up and calculate’ quote, appears to have had a much ‘braver’ attitude about the situation with quantum mechanics and with facing reality head on no matter what the evidence said:
Ironically, it is impossible to merely ‘shut up and calculate’ with quantum mechanics because the calculations of quantum mechanics refuse to be done without the ‘weirdness’ of quantum mechanics intruding full force into your calculations:
Also of note, Wigner, instead of ‘shutting up and calculating’, looked at the situation with quantum mechanics and developed a entirely new method of calculations called ‘quantum symmetries’. Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,
i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination!
Wigner went on to state:
Of supplemental note to the preceding Wigner ‘consciousness’ quotes, it is interesting to note that many of Wigner’s insights have now been experimentally verified and are also now fostering a ‘second’ revolution in quantum mechanics,,,
Thus, since Wigner’s insights into the foundational role of the ‘conscious observer’ in Quantum Mechanics are bearing fruit with a ‘Second Quantum Revolution’, then that is certainly very strong evidence that his ‘consciousness’ insights are indeed true for reality.
Of personal note on Wigner. A Darwinist tried to claim that Wigner was, of all things, an atheist.
As with so many other things that atheists claim, that claim turned out to be a false claim:
of semi-related note to an observer being needed in quantum mechanics in order to complete the measurement of a system, a ‘hypothetical observer’ with a ‘distinct frame of reference’ was key to Einstein’s breakthrough insights for relativity in his thought experiments:
My view is that when you get to the bottom turtle, there is no physical reality to understand. There is only Mind that chose the mathematical foundation of physical reality. At that level, all you can do is calculate.
BA77,
I wonder who that was? 🙂
BTW, the person who made that claim was not a Darwinist.