I watched a show on fizziks that is freakin bugging me.

[Agathon]

Still have no idea what you meant by metaphysics, BTW.

[Agathon]

This is more along the lines of what I meant.

While ancient Greek philosophy had tried to find order in the infinite variety of things and events by looking for some fundamental unifying principle, Descartes tries to establish the order through some fundamental division. But the three parts which result from the division lose some of their essence when any one part is considered as separated from the other two parts. If one uses the fundamental concepts of Descartes at all, it is essential that God is in the world and in the I and it is also essential that the I cannot be really separated from the world. Of course Descartes knew the undisputable necessity of the connection, but philosophy and natural science in the following period developed on the basis of the polarity between the 'res cogitans' and the 'res extensa', and natural science concentrated its interest on the 'res extensa'. The influence of the Cartesian division on human thought in the following centuries can hardly be overestimated, but it is just this division which we have to criticise later from the development of physics in our time.

But at this point the situation changed to some extent through quantum theory and therefore we may now come to a comparison of Descartes's philosophical system with our present situation in modern physics. It has been pointed out before that in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory we can indeed proceed without mentioning ourselves as individuals, but we cannot disregard the fact that natural science is formed by men. Natural science does not simply describe and explain nature; it is a part of the interplay between nature and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of questioning. This was a possibility of which Descartes could not have thought, but it makes the sharp separation between the world and the I impossible.

You can see that this is basically what I am suggesting, although this is much better written.

[Jon Miller]

I am not sure where you have gotten that from, but I don't think it is completely honest. It ventures beyond just the science of quantum mechanics to something that I would describe as metaphysics (ie philosophy). To be more exact, that is a certain philosophy of science which is by no means what is held by all scientists.

Physicists do philosophy also, btw.

JM

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am not sure where you have gotten that from, but I don't think it is completely honest. It ventures beyond just the science of quantum mechanics to something that I would describe as metaphysics (ie philosophy).

Physicists do philosophy also.

JM

O RLY?

I have no understanding of what you mean by honest. It just describes how it is difficult to appreciate QM because of prejudices we have inherited from previous worldviews. That was essentially my point.

I don't have a position on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics myself other than to say that people who don't attempt to provide one or who don't attempt to explain why it is unnecessary are pointless dogmatists.

[Jon Miller]

It sounds a whole lot like you are reading about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism#Consciousness_causes_collapse

Rather than about the other theories of quantum mechanics.

JM

[Agathon]

What does mysticism have to do with the claims made in my post?

If you are talking about the sharp separation between the world and ourselves, there is nothing particularly mystical about that. We are material beings. Hell, the opposite is more mystical. If we were mystical, then we would be like Plotinus and saying that matter is evil and that we have undescended intellects and all that kind of malarkey.

The God stuff is merely peripheral to my point.

[Dry]

Re: I watched a show on fizziks that is freakin bugging me.

Originally posted by Lancer
The Sci channel, about the atom. The atom can be in two places at once it seems. In fact, the fella said, the atom only sits still when it is being observed. Well. That is interesting. He termed it 'the measurement problem'. Speculated that since the universe is made of atoms that the universe is only the universe when someone is looking at it. That's kinda funny.

Discuss.

Either you remember wrong, or the show was plain wrong.
The Heisenberg uncertainty is not for atoms, but for particles.
When it goes about position of a particle, I see it this way:
the particle is distributed, spread around some location. It is mostly at this place, but it is also, to a lesser extend, around this place, like a distribution.
According to google, the smallest atom (Helium) is 32*10^-12m. The biggest particle (Neutron, proton) distribution (= the little sphere where the particle is mostly located) is +/- 2.5*10^-15m. That is 1000 times smaller.
Not knowing the very exact location of each particles of a given atom is irrelevant when you are dealing with the location of an atom.

[Kuciwalker]

The Heisenberg uncertainty is not for atoms, but for particles.

It applies perfectly well to atoms.

[Agathon]

So what do you mean by metaphysics, Kuci?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker Basically every analogy ever give in any popular science book is bogus, because the only correct way of understanding these phenomena is through the actual math.

Hardly anyone can understand the maths, or really needs to understand it to that level. So the analogies are very valuable to introduce people to subjects. If they then follow on into the maths, great. If not, they understand a little better than they did.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

little being the key here

[Lancer]

Re: Re: I watched a show on fizziks that is freakin bugging me.

Originally posted by Dry

Either you remember wrong, or the show was plain wrong.
The Heisenberg uncertainty is not for atoms, but for particles.
When it goes about position of a particle, I see it this way:
the particle is distributed, spread around some location. It is mostly at this place, but it is also, to a lesser extend, around this place, like a distribution.
According to google, the smallest atom (Helium) is 32*10^-12m. The biggest particle (Neutron, proton) distribution (= the little sphere where the particle is mostly located) is +/- 2.5*10^-15m. That is 1000 times smaller.
Not knowing the very exact location of each particles of a given atom is irrelevant when you are dealing with the location of an atom.

The entire show is youtubed on page one.

[Lorizael]

Lancer, an important thing to remember about observation: humans aren't the only objects that do it.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Lancer, an important thing to remember about observation: humans aren't the only objects that do it.

And it's not humans that are doing it. In the world of particles, only particles exist.

Also, on the subject. I was watching QI, which is an awesome show by the way, and one of their regular panelists, some formless aged British lady, started talking about Schroedinger's cat. When pressed to go on, she said it was a philosophical problem about people being unable to say whether one thing is one thing or another without checking.
It's not. It's an explanation of the same thing Lancer wrote about in the OP. Before we interact with the cat, it is alive and it is dead. It has also turned into a cactus. All of this at the same time. Only our interaction forces it to pick a state. The difference is, the cat can't be alive and dead and a cactus at the same time, while a particle can.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
What do you mean by metaphysics? I find your use of the term puzzling.

Philosophy about physics. AIUI that's basically what it means.