Commentor oleg said
'How', from Werner Heisenberg, who knew a bit about quantum mechanics:
Aristotle's ancient metaphysics sheds no light on the problem of quantum measurement. If it does, I would like to hear how.
'How', from Werner Heisenberg, who knew a bit about quantum mechanics:
One might perhaps call [the statistical nature of quantum theory] an objective tendency or possibility, a "potentia" in the sense of Aristotelian philosophy. In fact, I believe that the language actually used by physicists when they speak about atomic events produces in their minds similar notions as the concept "potentia." So the physicists have gradually become accustomed to considering the electronic orbits, etc., not as reality but rather as a kind of "potentia." ...The probability wave of Bohr, Kramers, Slater... was a quantitative version of the old concept of "potentia" in Aristotelian philosophy. It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality...The probability function combines objective and subjective elements. It contains statements about possibilities or better tendencies ("potentia" in Aristotelian philosophy), and these statements are completely objective, they do not depend on any observer; and it contains statements about our knowledge of the system, which of course are subjective in so far as they may be different for different observers...If we compare [the quantum mechanical relationship between matter and energy] with the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, we can say that the matter of Aristotle, which is mere "potentia," should be compared to our concept of energy, which gets into "actuality" by means of the form, when the elementary particle is created...
Let's see if oleg comes out of the corner for round 2. Heisenberg isn't even winded.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteHeisenberg engages in post hoc rationalization of quantum theory here.
Once the quantum theory is developed, you can look back and find all sorts of analogies with old philosophical concepts. And not just Aristotle's. Bohr's principle of complementarity, exemplified by the particle-wave duality, resembles the unity of opposites, a philosophical concept developed by Hegel and traceable all the way back to Heraclitus.
Does it mean that Aristotle and Hegel have something useful to say on the subject of quantum physics? No, it does not. Bohr and his colleagues did not rely on either Aristotle or Hegel when they developed quantum theory. They had to rely on calculus and linear algebra, but they had no use for Aristotle's metaphysics or Hegels dialectic.
Of course quantum theory did not remain frozen since inception. Feynman proposed an entirely new formulation of quantum mechanics based on path integrals. Although it is equivalent to the old quantum theory, it enabled physicists to do calculations that were not possible in the old framework. So Feynman's formulation is not an architectural detail on the facade of quantum mechanics, it is a structural member.
Perhaps Heisenberg's realization of a connection to Aristotle was useful as well? What did we learn from that? Can you explain?
oleg:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps Heisenberg's realization of a connection to Aristotle was useful as well? What did we learn from that? Can you explain?"
Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the materialist philosophy that we've inherited from the 16th century is inadequate to describe nature. Materialist philosophy disposed of Aristotle's four causes, and replaced it with material and truncated efficient causes. That works passably for Newtonian mechanics, but it fails miserably for qm and the mind.
Aristotelian metaphysics, which is the only metaphysics that is cconsistent with qm and a coherent understanding of the mind-body relationship, has all sorts of implications that you atheists/materialists hate-- the prime mover proof, etc.
Atheists abandoned Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics for ideological reasons (and because they're stupid and lazy, and scholasticism was hard), and now that it's clear that that was an error, you are resisting it for the same ideological reasons.
Ed Feser in the "Last Superstition" details this nicely. Throw away Armstrong and read him.
You'll learn a lot.
Mike
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 people talking on this thread, but there is no dialog. You are repeating your old talking points without addressing any of my comments. This won't work.
Let's review the developments so far.
You started by quoting my comment from another thread: "Aristotle's ancient metaphysics sheds no light on the problem of quantum measurement. If it does, I would like to hear how."
Your response to my request was to throw up a Heisenberg quote in which he points out, post hoc, a vague analogy between the quantum wavefunction and Aristotle's potentia. This might be of interestto philosophers, but the analogy is totally useless to physicists. In any event, you failed to show in what way it could be useful.
I pointed that out and furthermore, wrote that one can find tidbits of other philosophical systems if one digs into philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. However, that, again, is a bone thrown by physicists to philosophers. Philosophical considerations of that sort, whoever they come from, are useless in physics. It's a one-way street.
In response, you repeated, again, your talking points. And on top of that, suggested that I throw away Karen Armstrong's book and read Feser's. Do you realize how nonsensical your advice is? One book is on history of religion. The other is on Christian apologetics. Do you wish to imply that we should abandon history in favor of ideology?
Be a good boy and address the point of this thread. Or give up and move.
Oleg-
ReplyDeleteThank you for putting my feelings into to words... no dialogue. That's why they call it "Egnorance." I grow weary here. There is real life to enjoy. Dr. Egnor, please let us know when you've defeated evilution and installed a Christian theocracy. Goodbye.
@Mac:
ReplyDeleteI'm working on the evolution thing.
I would fight a theocracy with all my strength. Christianity is a matter of changing hearts and souls, not imposing an Establishment of religion. A theocracy would be unconstitutional, morally abhorrent, and bad for Christianity.
Secular power and Established religion don't mix.
I'm fighting an atheocracy now.
Mike
@oleg:
ReplyDelete[There are 2 people talking on this thread, but there is no dialog.]
There's an extensive dialog. It's just not going your way.
[You are repeating your old talking points without addressing any of my comments. This won't work.]
I'm telling the truth as I see it. Why would I stop doing that?
[Your response to my request was to throw up a Heisenberg quote in which he points out, post hoc,]
What makes you think that it was post hoc? Heisenberg was philosophically astute, and it's reasonable to assume that his insight predated at least some of his scientific work. His comments could be interpreted as his affirmation that his interpretation of qm was guided in part by his knowledge of Aristotle.
[...a vague analogy between the quantum wavefunction and Aristotle's potentia.]
It's not an analogy and it's not vague. Quantum wavefunctions are examples (as Heisenbery puts it-- "quantitative versions" ) of potentia, not analogies.
[This might be of interestto philosophers, but the analogy is totally useless to physicists.]
It's only useless if the physicists are ignorant of it. Aristotelian metaphysics provides the framework for qm. It's useless to you because you don't know it.
[In any event, you failed to show in what way it could be useful.]
Understanding the metaphysical basis for extraordinary new scientific insights is obviously useful, for scientists who are philosophically literate.
[I pointed that out and furthermore, wrote that one can find tidbits of other philosophical systems if one digs into philosophical implications of quantum mechanics.]
The application of Aristotelian metaphysics to qm isn't a "tidbit". There's an entire philosophical school (New Essentialism) that has developed on this basis. But you wouldn't know anything about that...
[However, that, again, is a bone thrown by physicists to philosophers. Philosophical considerations of that sort, whoever they come from, are useless in physics. It's a one-way street.]
Physics is natural philosophy, and philosophy is essential to all intellectual endeavors. The only question is whether scientists know that they are using philosophy, and whether it is good philosophy or bad philosophy. A physicist denying that he' s using philosophy is as stupid as an airplane pilot denying that he's using aerodynamics.
[In response, you repeated, again, your talking points.]
I repeated the truth. I understand that you wish I wouldn't keep saying it.
[And on top of that, suggested that I throw away Karen Armstrong's book and read Feser's. Do you realize how nonsensical your advice is? One book is on history of religion. The other is on Christian apologetics.]
Feser's book is a defense of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. He rips atheism and materialism to shreds. He's masterful. If you are to engage this debate competently, you need to understand the issues he raises.
[Do you wish to imply that we should abandon history in favor of ideology?]
It's all ideology. The only question is whether your ideology is true or false.
Mike
Dr Egnore
ReplyDeleteYou are the king of punchlines.
"Understanding the metaphysical basis for extraordinary new scientific insights is obviously useful, for scientists who are philosophically literate. "
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't. Coming up with a new hypothesis would be useful.
Feynman and Dirac did just fine without Aristotelian metaphysics.
Mike: What makes you think that it was post hoc? Heisenberg was philosophically astute, and it's reasonable to assume that his insight predated at least some of his scientific work. His comments could be interpreted as his affirmation that his interpretation of qm was guided in part by his knowledge of Aristotle.
ReplyDeleteIf you are so sure that it wasn't post hoc, perhaps you could point out specific places in Heisenberg's earlier papers, written during the development of quantum mechanics, that were inspired by Aristotle's metaphysics? I very much doubt that. He worked out matrix mechanics in 1925, but that only explained the spectra and not the probabilistic aspect of quantum physics. Bohr, Kramers, Slater, and also Born—not Heisenberg—came up with the probability interpretation of the wavefunction. Do they mention Aristotle somewhere?
Mike: It's only useless if the physicists are ignorant of it. Aristotelian metaphysics provides the framework for qm. It's useless to you because you don't know it. Understanding the metaphysical basis for extraordinary new scientific insights is obviously useful, for scientists who are philosophically literate.
If it is so obviously useful, why don't you provide a specific example of an "extraordinary new scientific insight" that was obtained or of a quantum problem that was solved thanks to the Aristotelean approach? I know of no such examples and I have been asking you to point out one. Instead we only hear the repetition of slogans.
Let me lead by example. Calculus was essential to the development of quantum mechanics. The use of calculus enabled Schroedinger to obtain the wavefunctions of the hydrogen atom and their energies.
Linear algebra is indispensable for quantum mechanics. The wavefunction obeys the principle of superposition, thus making linear algebra the lingua franca of quantum mechanics. The determination of energy spectra in a system with a finite Hilbert space reduces to the diagonalization of a matrix, a standard problem in linear algebra.
Group theory is very important in quantum mechanics. The Jahn-Teller effect, a spontaneous deformation of symmetric molecules with degenerate energy levels, was described in the language of group theory. Quarks were discovered theoretically on the basis of group-theoretic analysis. The specific symmetry group is SU(3).
Can you provide a similar example of the usefulness of the Aristotelean metaphysics in quantum mechanics? Don't repeat platitudes, give us some examples to chew on!
Mike: The application of Aristotelian metaphysics to qm isn't a "tidbit". There's an entire philosophical school (New Essentialism) that has developed on this basis. But you wouldn't know anything about that...
I don't care about the development of a new philosophical school. Here we are discussing applications of philosophy in science, specifically quantum physics. Come on, Mike, give us some examples of that!
* Crickets chirping *
ReplyDeleteI'd imagine that, were you're contentions on this post correct, Dr Egnor, then we'd find an abundance of insights to QM coming from people who adhere to some Aristotlian/Thomistic (AT) metaphysical framework.
ReplyDeleteI think that Oleg's point (and I may be wrong) is that this is simply not the case, and that people who are working from a metaphysics rather divergent from AT have contributed greatly to QM, meaning that AT is relatively useless to physics (at least as far as QM is concerned).