I finished using ChatGPT to edit the 2:18:00 Youtube and have shared it with several Forum members. Since it seems very possible that anything I use ChatGPT to produce will be ignored by my noisiest fans, I’ll share the 45 page transcript here, now. Introduction to the Podcast and Guest.
They should care about the basis of their work just the same as historians care about source and method. Scientists today are bad philosophers and it shows. You suggested the possibility of a self-defeating view about the law of non-contraction.
You hand-waved away philosophical content about potentialities in QM as flowery rhetoric but are now talking about an argument of incredulity? Not to mention, appealing to the law of non-contradiction to argue it might not be valid is absurd. If something violates the three main three laws of logic, then it is wrong or likely we don’t understand it properly or fully. There is no way around this and there is no way to have a reasonable discussion if we deny the laws of logic–the same laws that allow science to progess and study the microscopic realm. Yes, it is absolutely absurd for a cat to be both alive and dead at the same time. Absurd is being nice. It is completely moronic and lunacy of the highest order. That is not “an argument of incredulity,” it is simply the basis of all logical thought.
I would say that in one interpretation, quantum particles behave mathematically as waves on quantum fields. But are particles literally probability waves? Are quantum fields objectively real structures. Or are we dealing with abstract mathematical models capable of making predictions? Are quantum particles actual substances (little tiny billiard balls?) or the potential action of underlying fields or substances? Interpretations of QM are legion and this may provide a compelling reason for some to actually engage in philosophy again. In one sense, QM has changed how we understand the world. How can it not venture into philosophy and vice versa?
Feser: From an Aristotelian point of view, then, the traditional alternatives among possible interpretations of quantum mechanics are all seriously problematic in one respect or another. This is no embarrassment for the Aristotelian, because quantum mechanics is, notoriously, a mess from anyone’s point of view. A famous remark of Feynman’s has become a cliché, but it is true: “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” (1994, p. 123). What physics has given us is a mathematical description and technical jargon the application of which has yielded unprecedented predictive and technological success. And yet it leaves the question of how to interpret the mathematics and the jargon fairly wide open. As Hilary Putnam writes, “mathematically presented quantum- mechanical theories do not wear their ontologies on their sleeve… the mathematics does not transparently tell us what the theory is about. Not always, anyhow” (2012b, p. 161). A term like “superposition,” as David Albert notes, is “just a name for something we don’t understand” (1992, p. 11). What the physics tells us about a quantum object in a superposition of states A and B is that it is not in A and it is not in B and it is not in both and it is not in neither, but rather in a superposition of A and B. “And what that means (other than “none of the above”) we don’t know” (Albert 1992, p. 11).
I mean, look at all these QM interpretations from Wiki:
You would be correct, because material science can only identify and find material truth. It is impossible for it to do anything else or rule out immaterialism. Not to mention a number of metaphysical arguments sway me against it. Interestingly enough, some take QM in an immaterialist route.
I’m sure some materialists somewhere raise good arguments in favor of materialism, but Ive never seen one on the internet in a discussion forum. I’ve only seen atheists and theists argue over their mechanistic caricatures of god. Atheists like to “lack belief” then put the onus on the believer and require scientific evidence. It’s easy to turn that on its head with metaphysics.
Try doing science without logic and reason.
Short AI quote: Science . . . needs philosophy to provide foundational concepts, scrutinize assumptions, define knowledge, guide ethics, and clarify meaning, acting as a vital “meta-science” that examines science itself, offering tools for logic and critical thinking essential for deep understanding beyond just data collection, even though some scientists dismiss it due to specialization or a focus on concrete results. Philosophy clarifies what science is, how we know, and why we do it, influencing everything from theory choice to experimental design.
The more conversations we have the more it seems you embrace a very wooden scientism. Since such a science only posture cannot be scientifically demonstrated, I consider it self-defeating and unworthy of serious attention.
Absolutely. I wouldn’t describe my thoughts on a man raping a woman as: a subjective moral belief that is not an objective part of reality or tied into the nature of things… a belief that is not scientifically testable or falsifiable, but really consist of “empty rhetoric,” “semantics,” “human psychology” and “flowery words” that “reality doesn’t care about.” Since my moral views cannot “predict and explain reality” they can’t “get [me] very far.” Those are your words. Completely and unequivocally detached from reality.
Your hangup is anything not science.I prefer not to run around with a metal detector claiming only metal exists. I’d prefer to draw my line at morality over science. I have the same complaint in regards to a young earth creationist who just can’t let go of a 6,000 year old earth but has no problem rationalizing away divine violence in the OT. I mean, that is where you choose to draw your line? The age of the earth and not God sanctioning war-time rape? It boggles my mind at times. The age of the earth and not rape is the deal breaker?
This is how I view the situation.
And also as bringing act and potentiality back to natural science. We seem to describe the quantum world in terms of probability and potentiality now. Chalk a W up to Aristotle. I suspect Koons may be on to something when he says quantum particles are not substances but the potential action of substances.
Vinnie
3 Likes
- In Schrödinger’s setup, quantum mechanics doesn’t say the cat is ‘dead and alive.’
It says the cat has no definite classical state until measurement. Saying the cat is ‘both dead and alive’ confuses a quantum superposition (a state vector) with a classical contradiction (A and not-A). Those aren’t the same thing. - Somebody is wrong and it sure isn’t Vinnie or me.
4 Likes
Scientists do care about the basis of their work, but philosophers don’t shine a light on that topic.
You don’t need to be a good philosopher to be a good scientist.
So says the person using an argument from incredulity.
No physicist thinks the cat is both dead and alive in that experiment.
Like I said, philosophy is much more about human psychology than it is about the physical reality outside of human psychology. The mental processes we use to understand the world is our psychology.
What do I do if I want to measure the mass of something? Do I hem and haw about mass being objectively real? Do I gather philosophers together and debate for decades about the reality of matter? No. I put that dang thing on a scale and record its mass.
If there isn’t any possible observation that would change your mind then it appears we are at a dead end.
Your impressions are wrong. When there is evidence for something I accept the evidence and the conclusion it leads to. Don’t you do the same?
Flat Earthers wouldn’t describe the Earth as a globe, but that doesn’t cause the Earth to flatten out. Reality doesn’t conform to how we describe it.
What you are doing is denying there is metal when the metal detector detects it. Afterall, is metal even an objective fact? I guess we can’t know.
1 Like
The cat is exclusive or - either in a state of quantum superposition (A), or it is not in a state of quantum superposition (not-A). So quantum superposition does not violate Aristotle’s non-contradiction.
3 Likes
Maybe not – it is possible for something to be frozen in time and falling freely both at once – it just depends on the perspective.
To an observer outside the box, the cat can be considered to be “alive and dead” – or rather neither – at the same time. But from the cat’s perspective that is not the case.
You do realize that the cat that Schoedinger spoke of in his 1935 paper was a metaphor, don’t you? And that as a metaphor, it has no perspective and is certainly not in any box, and is neither dead or alive, much less alive and dead.
1 Like
- What Schrödinger’s cat is a metaphor for is a reductio of naive Copenhagen interpretation applied to macroscopic objects. Schrödinger invented the cat to mock the idea that the quantum wavefunction can be interpreted naively as representing a literal physical mixture of mutually exclusive macroscopic states. It is a metaphor for: (i) the absurdity of treating quantum superposition as a literal description of a large-scale object, (ii) the ambiguity in interpreting the wavefunction, (iii) the measurement problem: where and how quantum possibilities become classical outcomes, (iv) the gap between quantum formalism and classical language, (v) the philosophical difficulty of mapping Hilbert-space vectors onto real-world macroscopic states
Schrödinger himself calls it “pardon the expression” and “ridiculous,” meaning: It is not intended as a description of a real physical situation. The cat is a metaphor for the conceptual tension in quantum mechanics when superposition is extended from microscopic to macroscopic scales.
- What Schrödinger’s cat is not a metaphor for is (A) a literal physical contradiction (A and not-A). Superposition is a quantum state vector — not a classical proposition. The cat metaphor does not endorse: (i) “alive AND dead at the same time”, (ii) “true AND false at the same time”, (iii) violation of non-contradiction, (iv) elimination of classical logic
Schrödinger meant the opposite: to show that treating superposition as literal macroscopic contradiction is absurd.
B) It is not a metaphor for superposition itself. The cat is not “what superposition is.”
c) It is not a metaphor for how physicists actually think cats behave. No physicist thinks cats, tables, or chairs literally enter superposition in the classical sense.The metaphor was never meant as a physical proposal.
D) It is not a metaphor for "both things are true."
The cat is a metaphor — not for a literal contradiction, but for the conceptual absurdity that arises if you treat quantum superposition as though it described macroscopic classical states. Schrödinger invented the scenario as a reductio, not as a claim that a cat is literally both alive and dead.
Schrödinger’s cat is a metaphor for the measurement problem in quantum mechanics — the difficulty of mapping the quantum state (a vector of amplitudes) onto definite classical outcomes like ‘alive’ or ‘dead.’ It is not a metaphor for a real-world contradiction, nor should anyone claim it is.
1 Like
Are you talking about something falling into a black hole? Relativity? What do you mean by frozen in time?
It is either alive or dead. I would not assume there is both ketchup in my fridge and not ketchup In my fridge until I checked. That is an absurd way of framing it. Maybe we should take a page out of the atheist playbook and just lack belief in ketchup existing in my fridge until I check? 
The LNC is the basic of all logical thought and discussion. It serves as the foundation for scientific advances as well. You can’t distinguish truth from falsehood without it. Some of the views in here are off the rocker. They read like tabloid science.
Vinnie
2 Likes
In different words, the cat illustration is asking, “Are you really saying that the universe doesn’t make up its mind until we look?”
Yes.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Foul! I searched Youtube for “the simplest explanation of ‘superposition’” and got this: Short video reel of Dominic Walliman
- Transcript of short reel: “Another phenomena is superposition. It’s a very fancy word but all it means is something that can do opposite things at the same time. So for example, I can spin around one way. I can spin around the other way. But what would it look like for me to spin around in both directions at the same time? We can’t do that (laughs); we can’t imagine that but this is what these subatomic particles do all the time. And, in fact, we can kind of do it; at least bits of us can. So if you’ve ever been in an MRI machine, what an MRI machine does it finds all of the hydrogen atoms in your body and makes them spin around in both directions at the same time in this superposition. This is what allows us to see inside people’s bodies.”
I asked ChatGPT if it could identify the source of the reel (since the reel itself identifies it as originating in a Ted Talk. ChatGPT did identify the Ted Talk as Quantum Physics for 7 Year Olds | Dominic Walliman | TEDxEastVan - May 24, 2016
Convinced that Walliman was promoting the same kind of nonsense that has been criticized elsewhere in this thread, I gave the transcript of the reel to ChatGPT and received this response.
Is his “superposition” explanation accurate?
Partly, but it is pedagogically simplified to the point of being technically misleading in two places.
1) “Superposition means doing opposite things at the same time.”
As a cartoon-level explanation for a general audience, this points in the right direction: in quantum theory a system can be in a linear combination of states (e.g., “spin up” and “spin down” with respect to a chosen measurement axis). A two-level system is commonly represented as a point on the Bloch sphere, and a generic pure state is a superposition of the two basis states. (Wikipedia)
But technically:
-
Superposition is not “opposites at the same time” so much as a state that is not an eigenstate of the observable you will later measure.
-
For spin, “up/down” are measurement outcomes, not literal classical spinning in opposite directions.
2) “MRI makes hydrogen atoms spin around in both directions at the same time in this superposition.”
This is the most problematic sentence.
What is accurate:
-
MRI is based on nuclear magnetic resonance of (primarily) hydrogen nuclei (protons), which have two energy states in a magnetic field, and are driven by RF pulses at the Larmor frequency. (RIT Experiential Learning Center)
-
In a fully quantum description, RF pulses can prepare individual spins in superpositions of those two states (and this is exactly why NMR is often used as a teaching example for “qubit-like” two-level systems). (Permalink)
What is misleading:
-
Clinical MRI does not put “all the hydrogen atoms in your body” into a single coherent “both directions at once” state. It deals with an ensemble of spins whose net magnetization is well-described by bulk/thermal physics; coherence times are limited and the signal is effectively an aggregate response, not a macroscopic Schrödinger-cat-style superposition across your whole body. (eBrain)
-
Saying “spin around in both directions” reifies “spin” as literal rotation; in quantum mechanics spin is an intrinsic angular momentum with measurement statistics, not a tiny ball physically spinning like a top.
A fair “confirm/qualify” verdict you can use
If you need a crisp judgment:
-
Correct in spirit: MRI relies on quantum properties of nuclear spins, and quantum superposition is part of the underlying formalism. (RIT Experiential Learning Center)
-
Overstated in form: “makes hydrogen atoms spin both ways at once” is an oversimplification that blurs (i) quantum spin vs literal rotation and (ii) single-spin superposition vs ensemble MRI physics. (eBrain)
Einstein famously showed observers will disagree on when exactly an event happened (simultaneity) when they are in different frames of reference that move relative to one another. Art typical speeds this not not noticeable but we know clocks appear to run differently based on motion and gravity. So while relativity challenges our intuitions about time and simultaneity, it does not violate the law of non contradiction. If you said it was raining and I said it was not, we both could be correct. This is not a violation of the laws of logic. It simply takes into account our different frames of reference as does relativity. What we empiraclly detect depends on it.
A more technical answer might involve a discussion of relativity and the A-theory of time. Relativity doesn’t compel me to ditch any metaphysical ideas about objective simultaneity. Maybe we have an inability to detect this perfectly via empirical means but the further conclusion is only probative if we agree there are no objective facts beyond what empirical science can detect. I do not embrace scientism or verificationism which played a huge role for Einstein.
Vinnie
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.