• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The assumption of materialism/physicalism

joelr

Well-Known Member
What you mean with causality was violated? Causality, still travels at the speed of light. At best.

You cannot transmit any sort of information by using entanglement at speed that is higher than the speed of light. The correlation you have between the observation of two remote entangled particles still encapsulate 1 bit (or qubit). So, observing one does not leave any other bit to be sent wherever. That is completely different from two particles that are not entangled and are completely uncorrelated, since in this case you have two bits. Alas, in this case, no correlation exists and any residual bit will have to sent at the speed of light, at best.

Ergo, if we identify causality with the possibility of transferring information from A to B (which is what really counts), then nature is still pretty much local, since this is bounded by a finite maximal speed.

Ciao

- viole

I know all that. I'm sure you are aware of Bell's Inequality and that there are some very strange mysteries that cannot be solved.
The fact that we can't send messages FTL doesn't change the fact that quantum states communicating FTL is very strange.

Why do you think Einstein had such a problem with this?

What I'm saying is the mysteries in quantum physics are pointing to some type of reality beyond our "physical". Where does the information in the wave function reside? Why do wave functions re-assemble if the "which way" information is destroyed? Even after already being collapsed by a measurment? It requires a meta-physics.
You can find a "shut up and calculate" physicist to sort of push away these mysterious properties or I can find some more open physicists to quote. Such as Bruce Rosenblum or Fred Kuttner.
Their refreshingly honest book Quantum Enigma admits there are some very strange mysteries.
They also admit that it "seems" like consciousness effects results.
Not "does effect", just seems like it. That is weird?

But I can't make any definitive statements, I'm saying it's looking like there are more levels to reality.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I know all that. I'm sure you are aware of Bell's Inequality and that there are some very strange mysteries that cannot be solved.
The fact that we can't send messages FTL doesn't change the fact that quantum states communicating FTL is very strange.

Why do you think Einstein had such a problem with this?

.

There is no FTL communication. There is correlation that was formed when the entangled particles were formed. That correlation continues until the measurement.

But, yes, it is very strange to those who hold to a classical view of causality and realism.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
There is no FTL communication. There is correlation that was formed when the entangled particles were formed. That correlation continues until the measurement.

But, yes, it is very strange to those who hold to a classical view of causality and realism.

Right but the correlation causes one to spin opposite only after the first was measured.
So if they are 1 light year apart each could be found in either spin state.
But once one is measured the other has no choice to show as the opposite. Even if there is 1 light year separation.

So even though we can't use it to send a message, something has to travel FTL OR there is some connection under our reality that allows them to be connected.
Either way it suggests another meta-physical realm. Not god, just a different layer of reality.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Right but the correlation causes one to spin opposite only after the first was measured.
So if they are 1 light year apart each could be found in either spin state.
But once one is measured the other has no choice to show as the opposite. Even if there is 1 light year separation.

So even though we can't use it to send a message, something has to travel FTL OR there is some connection under our reality that allows them to be connected.
Either way it suggests another meta-physical realm. Not god, just a different layer of reality.

Well, once again, there is the correlation. Nothing is going from one of the entangled pair to the other. Instead, the correlation that is formed when the entangled pair is formed travels (at slower than light speed) along with the particles. Both sides *look* absolutely random until the two sets of measurements are brought together (at slower than light speed). So, there *is* a connection: the correlation that is formed when the entanglement is formed.

It isn't another metaphysical realm: it is how this physical realm works. Probabilities and correlations travel, not properties and definite states.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I know all that. I'm sure you are aware of Bell's Inequality and that there are some very strange mysteries that cannot be solved.
The fact that we can't send messages FTL doesn't change the fact that quantum states communicating FTL is very strange.

There are no quantum states communication FTL. There is even a theorem about that.

Why do you think Einstein had such a problem with this?
Metaphysical prejudices, mainly. He believed nature must be like that, and could not accept that it was not as he thought.

What I'm saying is the mysteries in quantum physics are pointing to some type of reality beyond our "physical". Where does the information in the wave function reside? Why do wave functions re-assemble if the "which way" information is destroyed? Even after already being collapsed by a measurment? It requires a meta-physics.
No, lol. Metaphysics? Like someone once said, do not concern too much about that, just follow the math. Our brains are the product of naturalistic processes geared towards survival, not truth, and are totally unreliable when it comes to understand things that are not needed to survive. Like the ontology of a quantum wave.

You do not need metaphysics, you need brains that understand that. The physical and natural character of our brains does not allow that.

You can find a "shut up and calculate" physicist to sort of push away these mysterious properties or I can find some more open physicists to quote. Such as Bruce Rosenblum or Fred Kuttner.
Their refreshingly honest book Quantum Enigma admits there are some very strange mysteries.
They also admit that it "seems" like consciousness effects results.
Not "does effect", just seems like it. That is weird?
Yes, I did not use shut up, but that is the meaning. And forget all that new age nonsense of consciousness affecting reality. They just want to make a buck by selling existing pseudo metaphysical or dualistic realities to the gullible starving for something more than the physical.

Even a bacterium can collapse a wave, so to speak. There are much more compelling interpretations that do not introduce ad hoc mechanisms absent in the theory. With the bonus of making it deterministic again, by just redefining what we mean with Universe. I am not sure Einstein would have appreciated, but nevertheless....no dice, anymore.

But I can't make any definitive statements, I'm saying it's looking like there are more levels to reality.

Well, We have been knowing that already. Sounds like a deepity, though :)

Ciao

- viole
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Well, once again, there is the correlation. Nothing is going from one of the entangled pair to the other. Instead, the correlation that is formed when the entangled pair is formed travels (at slower than light speed) along with the particles. Both sides *look* absolutely random until the two sets of measurements are brought together (at slower than light speed). So, there *is* a connection: the correlation that is formed when the entanglement is formed.

It isn't another metaphysical realm: it is how this physical realm works. Probabilities and correlations travel, not properties and definite states.


We don't know is the science advisors answer:

"There may be hidden variables, and if there are, they are non-local. That's Bell. And no one knows the precise mechanism that allows separated entangled particles to behave as a single system. "

Reference I - Entanglement and non locality
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
There are no quantum states communication FTL. There is even a theorem about that.
That would involve mixed states (for communication) and if you have one eigenvalue (like position) your momentum uncertainty can be FTL but in the wash it all evens out.

Regarding entanglement, I know, no communication FTL. C'mon give me that much?

Metaphysical prejudices, mainly. He believed nature must be like that, and could not accept that it was not as he thought.

and hidden variables


No, lol. Metaphysics? Like someone once said, do not concern too much about that, just follow the math. Our brains are the product of naturalistic processes geared towards survival, not truth, and are totally unreliable when it comes to understand things that are not needed to survive. Like the ontology of a quantum wave.

Disagree.
Our brains are incredibly reliable when it comes to understanding things not needed to survive.
Proof - all math beyond basic addition/subtraction, quantum mechanics, relativity (2), quantum field theory, QED and so forth, astrophysics, cosmology, philosophy, etc..

In Maxwell's day what do you think metaphysics was? It was relativity, quantum physics (and a lot of fake stuff).
We might be at the limit of understanding but I doubt it.
However, the ontology of a quantum wave IS a reality. We're not talking religion here. Waves have some reality, something is there. It isn't "nothing". It's also not just "emergent behavior" of spacetime because it would show up in a quantization of sace-time (well we don't have that yet). But say we quantize gravity and there is still no explanation for the existence of the wave function. It's still embedded in reality and the standard model doesn't get to it.

A wave function is actually the ultimate reality and we don't know what it's made of or if it's just a mathematical entity?
If you are smaller than your wave you exist as a superposition of states but if bigger than it you collapse yourself? This isn't a problem of understanding it's a problem of figuring out what the heck is going on. It's looking like more layers are going to be needed to reality or to "the physical".

You do not need metaphysics, you need brains that understand that. The physical and natural character of our brains does not allow that.
We are not at the end of our ability to understand the universe. Not likely.
There is a science that we can understand behind some of these mysteries of physics.
Why would things change now?


Yes, I did not use shut up, but that is the meaning. And forget all that new age nonsense of consciousness affecting reality. They just want to make a buck by selling existing pseudo metaphysical or dualistic realities to the gullible starving for something more than the physical.

Well I'm not talking about "The Secret" here. There is an interesting push-back from all that "consciousness creates reality, quantum physics proves it" BS.
Now scholarship can't even talk about the fact that there are some mysterious properties in quantum mechanics.
Neil DeGrass Tyson has repeatedly gone on talk shows and said "there is no mystery to the wave collapse, measurement interferes with the wave and it collapses".
As if he's talking about a classical object.

That is not true. In the double quantum eraser you measure the "which way" of the photon and it collapses the wave. If you destroy the information before the photon hits the detector it will go back to being a wave.

Details of the experiment here:
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser

In a simple double slit if you use a detector you will collapse the wave but if you use the detector but destroy the information it will not collapse

"
3. Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.

The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall.

The Reality Program

No one knows what that means. But now it's become like a religious belief at a Catholic/Jewish wedding - It's better to just not speak of it so everyone gets along?

It's why I mentioned Quantum Enigma because they at least went over the evidence. They admitted the question gets raised.


Even a bacterium can collapse a wave, so to speak. There are much more compelling interpretations that do not introduce ad hoc mechanisms absent in the theory. With the bonus of making it deterministic again, by just redefining what we mean with Universe. I am not sure Einstein would have appreciated, but nevertheless....no dice, anymore.


Currently there are Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, and like 8 others.
The fact that the wave collapses or doesn't or even switches when information is available or not does make it seem like something is going on with consciousness. I know we can't say.
If you tried to determine if a bacterium could collapse a wave it would be a situation where the information about the particle was available to you also. So it would collapse.

But isn't it weird that you can do a double eraser or have a detector run the information through a scrambler and then it will allow a collapse the wave? Why would a wave care about information in a detector or information that has been destroyed after it passes the detector?

I'm saying that with all these mysteries that there is more layers to reality and that we will understand it.
I'm not getting paid by scholarship so I can say or speculate whatever I want and I will experience zero pay cuts.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
We don't know is the science advisors answer:

"There may be hidden variables, and if there are, they are non-local. That's Bell. And no one knows the precise mechanism that allows separated entangled particles to behave as a single system. "

Reference I - Entanglement and non locality

But we know far more than just Bell's inequalities. Quantum mechanics is a *local*, but not *realist* description. It has worked in every situation in which it has been tested, including those where it gives very counter-intuitive results.

Furthermore, the non-local theories that have been proposed (like Bohmian mechanics) do not generalize well and do not deal well with relativistic effects like spin or anti-particles.

One difficulty is that you are assuming there is a *mechanism* for entanglement past the simple correlation of probabilities (which is formed when the particles themselves form). The term 'mechanism', though, tends to imply a more classical description that is almost certainly wrong.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
But we know far more than just Bell's inequalities. Quantum mechanics is a *local*, but not *realist* description. It has worked in every situation in which it has been tested, including those where it gives very counter-intuitive results.

Furthermore, the non-local theories that have been proposed (like Bohmian mechanics) do not generalize well and do not deal well with relativistic effects like spin or anti-particles.

One difficulty is that you are assuming there is a *mechanism* for entanglement past the simple correlation of probabilities (which is formed when the particles themselves form). The term 'mechanism', though, tends to imply a more classical description that is almost certainly wrong.
But the probabilities do not make predictions that particle pairs will act as entangled? That's the whole point?
Didn't an earlier answer in that thread deal with that?

"What the experimental violation of Bell inequalities shows is that the correlations between measurements of two separated particles A and B cannot be explained away by common-cause events whose actions propagate at a finite speed (e.g., the speed of light). This non-local correlation is a very important fact about physical reality, but going from that to deducing that faster than light signals have to travel between the particles requires extra assumptions about quantum physics that are not universally agreed upon. In any case, they don't communicate information in the traditional sense, because, if all you have is particle A, there is no measurement you could do on A or way that you can tell if particle A is half of an entangled pair. It's only when whomever is doing measurements on the particle B compares notes with you later on, that you can see that there are correlations, and nonlocal correlations at that.

Reference I - Entanglement and non locality"


"requires extra assumptions about quantum physics that are not universally agreed upon."

We can't get to the answer. But that does not imply it's a classical deterministic system?
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
But the probabilities do not make predictions that particle pairs will act as entangled? That's the whole point?
Didn't an earlier answer in that thread deal with that?

"What the experimental violation of Bell inequalities shows is that the correlations between measurements of two separated particles A and B cannot be explained away by common-cause events whose actions propagate at a finite speed (e.g., the speed of light). This non-local correlation is a very important fact about physical reality, but going from that to deducing that faster than light signals have to travel between the particles requires extra assumptions about quantum physics that are not universally agreed upon. In any case, they don't communicate information in the traditional sense, because, if all you have is particle A, there is no measurement you could do on A or way that you can tell if particle A is half of an entangled pair. It's only when whomever is doing measurements on the particle B compares notes with you later on, that you can see that there are correlations, and nonlocal correlations at that.

Reference I - Entanglement and non locality"


Acting entangled simply means that the probabilities are correlated. In an extreme case, whatever happens to one side, the opposite happens to the other. But what is communicated (from the origin of the particles) is the correlation.

The only way to tell particles are entangled is to measure both (or all) and then bring the observations together (at slower than the speed of light) to see how they are correlated.

But the correlation doesn't arise when the measurements are made: it arises when the entangled pair is formed. That correlation is preserved as the particles move apart. When the measurements are made, the results maintain that correlation.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Acting entangled simply means that the probabilities are correlated. In an extreme case, whatever happens to one side, the opposite happens to the other. But what is communicated (from the origin of the particles) is the correlation.

The only way to tell particles are entangled is to measure both (or all) and then bring the observations together (at slower than the speed of light) to see how they are correlated.

But the correlation doesn't arise when the measurements are made: it arises when the entangled pair is formed. That correlation is preserved as the particles move apart. When the measurements are made, the results maintain that correlation.


I see the problem, you can't have a definite state, that doesn't work. I need help explaining further:

"That was the initial assumption made by physicists like Einstein. But then it was demonstrated by John Bell that if we think that the entangled pairs have properties that yield a particular spin, properties that are established at the moment they are created, then we will get different predictions than what QM predicts. QM predicts the same results as the experimental results. In other words spins are not already decided. This points to nonlocality which apparently doesn't contradict Relativity as proven No Comunication Theorem."

"Thus, when a measurement is performed on an entangled state, it doesn’t simply tell the state of the subsystem not involved directly into the measurement but, in fact, creates it. "


The problem is that “entanglement” and “spins already defined” do not go well with each other. Whenever there’s entanglement with respect to some degree of freedom, individual constituents of the system cannot be characterized by a definite value of that degree of freedom.

"https://www.quora.com/For-quantum-e...vations-just-tell-us-which-one-has-which-spin
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I see the problem, you can't have a definite state, that doesn't work. I need help explaining further:

"That was the initial assumption made by physicists like Einstein. But then it was demonstrated by John Bell that if we think that the entangled pairs have properties that yield a particular spin, properties that are established at the moment they are created, then we will get different predictions than what QM predicts. QM predicts the same results as the experimental results. In other words spins are not already decided. This points to nonlocality which apparently doesn't contradict Relativity as proven No Comunication Theorem."

"Thus, when a measurement is performed on an entangled state, it doesn’t simply tell the state of the subsystem not involved directly into the measurement but, in fact, creates it. "


The problem is that “entanglement” and “spins already defined” do not go well with each other. Whenever there’s entanglement with respect to some degree of freedom, individual constituents of the system cannot be characterized by a definite value of that degree of freedom.

"https://www.quora.com/For-quantum-e...vations-just-tell-us-which-one-has-which-spin

That's right. They do NOT have a *definite* spin at creation. They have *correlated* spins at creation. That's what QM says: correlation, not definite values. That correlation is formed when the particles are formed and continues until the measurements are made.

But quantum particles don't have definite properties for things like spin: the spin is NOT determined until measurement. In entangled particles, the two spins are NOT definite, but they *are* correlated: one will be the opposite of the other, for example.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes, I did not use shut up, but that is the meaning. And forget all that new age nonsense of consciousness affecting reality. They just want to make a buck by selling existing pseudo metaphysical or dualistic realities to the gullible starving for something more than the physical.
If only I could give you a second “winner” frubals, for this paragraph alone, I would.

I do find the focus on metaphysics from some people to be overstated New Age crap.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
That's right. They do NOT have a *definite* spin at creation. They have *correlated* spins at creation. That's what QM says: correlation, not definite values. That correlation is formed when the particles are formed and continues until the measurements are made.

But quantum particles don't have definite properties for things like spin: the spin is NOT determined until measurement. In entangled particles, the two spins are NOT definite, but they *are* correlated: one will be the opposite of the other, for example.


Same problem, different words.
"In short, the kind of correlations involved in entanglement entail a causal link between systems that is instantaneous regardless of how space-like separated the systems are"


The whole point of the experiments starting with Alaine Aspect was to see if the correlations happened FTL. They do.
One particle still has to know if the other was collapsed into a definite state. If this wasn't weird it wouldn't be called "spooky". But experiments show that the particle somehow know.
The other particle should not be able to know that it's pair was collapsed. It violates locality!?




"Correlation is generally regarded as a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for causality. That is, given a correlation between measurements of two phenomena A and B, either A causes B, B causes A, or C causes both. Entanglement is a special form of a particular kind of correlation, in that correlations between two or more space-like separated systems cannot be explained by any local cause C (locality is a necessary requirement for classical causality as well).



The mathematical proof that particular measurements of correlated, space-like separated systems would be necessarily nonlocal was provided by Bell, and is referred to as Bell's inequality. In 1982, Alain Aspect et al. provided the first violation of Bell's inequality, which is to say that they were able to measure systems that were correlated in a way that was both causal and nonlocal. Although entanglement experiments have come a long way, the basic schema is as follows: 1) An entangled system such as paired photons is prepared. 2) The researchers let the individual component systems "run", and in particular down different paths. 3) One of the systems is measured, while the other remains in an unknown and unknowable state. 4) The measured system tells us the result of a measurement that hasn't yet been made on the other system, but that will be correct. 5) Bell's inequality is violated if the information gained by the first measurement somehow "causes" the results of a measurement that hasn't taken place (i.e., the method of preparation and measurement rules out any "hidden variables" explanation AND the first measurement ensures the probabilistic/statistical structure of quantum mechanics is violated in that the first measurement both ensures what the outcome of a future measurement of the other system will be regardless of the space-like separation between the systems and ONLY the measurement ensures this).
In short, the kind of correlations involved in entanglement entail a causal link between systems that is instantaneous regardless of how space-like separated the systems are."

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_correlation_and_entanglement




"Entanglement is a special kind of correlation, a very strong one, not allowed in the classical world. Entangled states can carry more information in the correlations than the analogous classical system."

The original idea was there is possibly more to reality then what we consider the "physical" world.
"Not allowed in the classical world" yet still happening means that might be true.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Same problem, different words.
"In short, the kind of correlations involved in entanglement entail a causal link between systems that is instantaneous regardless of how space-like separated the systems are"


The whole point of the experiments starting with Alaine Aspect was to see if the correlations happened FTL. They do.
One particle still has to know if the other was collapsed into a definite state. If this wasn't weird it wouldn't be called "spooky". But experiments show that the particle somehow know.
The other particle should not be able to know that it's pair was collapsed. It violates locality!?




"Correlation is generally regarded as a necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for causality. That is, given a correlation between measurements of two phenomena A and B, either A causes B, B causes A, or C causes both. Entanglement is a special form of a particular kind of correlation, in that correlations between two or more space-like separated systems cannot be explained by any local cause C (locality is a necessary requirement for classical causality as well).



The mathematical proof that particular measurements of correlated, space-like separated systems would be necessarily nonlocal was provided by Bell, and is referred to as Bell's inequality. In 1982, Alain Aspect et al. provided the first violation of Bell's inequality, which is to say that they were able to measure systems that were correlated in a way that was both causal and nonlocal. Although entanglement experiments have come a long way, the basic schema is as follows: 1) An entangled system such as paired photons is prepared. 2) The researchers let the individual component systems "run", and in particular down different paths. 3) One of the systems is measured, while the other remains in an unknown and unknowable state. 4) The measured system tells us the result of a measurement that hasn't yet been made on the other system, but that will be correct. 5) Bell's inequality is violated if the information gained by the first measurement somehow "causes" the results of a measurement that hasn't taken place (i.e., the method of preparation and measurement rules out any "hidden variables" explanation AND the first measurement ensures the probabilistic/statistical structure of quantum mechanics is violated in that the first measurement both ensures what the outcome of a future measurement of the other system will be regardless of the space-like separation between the systems and ONLY the measurement ensures this).
In short, the kind of correlations involved in entanglement entail a causal link between systems that is instantaneous regardless of how space-like separated the systems are."

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_correlation_and_entanglement




"Entanglement is a special kind of correlation, a very strong one, not allowed in the classical world. Entangled states can carry more information in the correlations than the analogous classical system."

The original idea was there is possibly more to reality then what we consider the "physical" world.
"Not allowed in the classical world" yet still happening means that might be true.


But the point is that the *correlations* only travel slower than light. Because of the correlations, though, the distant spins are related. There is no instant communication.

The difficulty is classical thinking: that particles have definite properties and that to change those properties requires some sort of communication. The only communication here is the actual motion of the particles carrying the correlations. The measurements give results, but those results are probabilistic, not determined.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
But the point is that the *correlations* only travel slower than light. Because of the correlations, though, the distant spins are related. There is no instant communication.

The difficulty is classical thinking: that particles have definite properties and that to change those properties requires some sort of communication. The only communication here is the actual motion of the particles carrying the correlations. The measurements give results, but those results are probabilistic, not determined.

I think I covered this with the last post. Non-local. Saying that the difficulty is classical thinking is saying the same thing. There is a non-local mystery here that you cannot get around.Kinda going in circles now.

Wiki


quantum nonlocality is a property of the universe that is independent of our description of nature.


In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality most commonly refers to the phenomenon by which measurements made at a microscopic level contradict a collection of notions known as local realism that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics. However, some quantum mechanical predictions of multi-system measurement statistics on entangled quantum states cannot be simulated by any local hidden variable theory. An explicit example is demonstrated by Bell's theorem, which has been verified by experiment.

So this is why I originally said what we think of as "physical" might be more than what we currently know.
Classical reality is basically the same thing. Is this that thing where one cannot admit there are strange mysteries that might even suggest more layers to reality? How dare I?
I do not think we are going to squeeze non-locality into the classical reality box. Maybe it's another spatial dimension, I don't know?
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
If only I could give you a second “winner” frubals, for this paragraph alone, I would.

I do find the focus on metaphysics from some people to be overstated New Age crap.


Except it would be twice as wrong because we were not even in disagreement? Not sure why you would admit to even one?
I agreed with the statement and simply said there is a mystery. I gave sources to experiments.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Except it would be twice as wrong because we were not even in disagreement? Not sure why you would admit to even one?
I agreed with the statement and simply said there is a mystery. I gave sources to experiments.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you.

I had agreed with viole’s view on metaphysics, had nothing to do with you.

I just have a thing against metaphysics and people who advocate metaphysics over natural reality and over common sense.

Taken to the extreme, metaphysics is useless when the knowledge they trying to explain cannot be verified with maths and empirical evidences.

Metaphysician apologists would argue that metaphysics is attempt to go beyond naturalism, beyond anything that science could explain, because of the “meta-”, but that’s exactly the same faulty argument religious believers used.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I wasn’t disagreeing with you.

I had agreed with viole’s view on metaphysics, had nothing to do with you.

I just have a thing against metaphysics and people who advocate metaphysics over natural reality and over common sense.

Taken to the extreme, metaphysics is useless when the knowledge they trying to explain cannot be verified with maths and empirical evidences.

Metaphysician apologists would argue that metaphysics is attempt to go beyond naturalism, beyond anything that science could explain, because of the “meta-”, but that’s exactly the same faulty argument religious believers used.


My mistake then. I thought "winner" was saying one person was, well, the winner?


Religion is set in scripture though. Metaphysics is a wider realm. Some metaphysics ends up becoming science.
There is always a boundary where science can't explain the next step or level. So metaphysics sometimes attempts to make hypothesis based on the edge of science.
Like the multiverse, higher spatial dimensions and why does the observer "seem" to influence wave function information in the double quantum eraser experiment? What makes it seem that way?
Then further out are ideas like vitalism which have only anecdotal evidence which might be lies or hallucinations?
Both relativities were metaphysics at one point.
There was a scientist who postulated special relativity who was obviously mocked. Rutherofrd? I forgot?
Reimann postulated non-euclidean geometry as a reality (which was metaphysics and he was mocked heavily) and came up with a mathematics. Or came up with the math then suggested it had some reality.

Turned out it was the geometry of space-time! Einstein needed it for general relativity about 20 years later.
 
Top