BothAndBlog Forum

Foundational Questions of Physics & Metaphysics
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/743631

Philosophical Diffidence
On TPF, many posters seem to feel inferior to more pragmatic intellectuals (e.g. empirical realistic scientists). So, they try to hide their conjectures & speculations behind some "proven" or "settled" scientific facts. Unfortunately, while Quantum Physics is a gold mine for philosophical questing, it offers little solid ground upon which to base our materialistic models of physical Reality.

In the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci, asks, "What Does It Mean To 'Interpret' Quantum Mechanics?" In the early days of Quantum Theory, some Hard-line scientists have been known to claim that there's no need to "make sense" of quantum queerness, as long as the mathematical models work reliably. Hence, they denigrated any rational or metaphorical attempts "to attach physical interpretations to the equations : the math is all there is, the rest is a waste of time . Philosophy, if you will".

But, over the years, that professional smugness seems to have been shaken by their inability to reconcile QT with Classical Physics. A 2017 international survey of physicist's attitudes on "foundational issues" *1 revealed that "the shut-up and calculate school is in the minority, at only 23 percent". Pigliucci noted that Philosophers of Science call the "shut-up" types "anti-realists", because they "think science is not in the business of arriving at truths about the world, but can only produce empirically adequate models". . . . "The realists, by contrast, think that the whole point of science is to produce true statements about how the world works, so they are never going to be satisfied with just mathematical models --- no matter how phenomenally accurate".

Pigliucci was provoked to write this article by belittling statements from some scientists, that compared to empirical science, "philosophy obviously doesn't make progress". So, he responds that, according to the 2017 survey, "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics". And he points to the survey as "empirical evidence to prove it". Then he says "Let that sink in : there is no way to empirically tell apart different interpretations of quantum mechanics. One might even suspect that this isn't really science. It smells more like . . . metaphysics".

When I label my own philosophical "interpretations" of the quantum foundations of reality as "Meta-Physics", I often receive finger-pointing accusations of promoting "woo", or if especially offensive to the poster's belief system, as "woo-woo". That character assassination labels me as " A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations". But, according to the survey, it seems that I'm in good company, along with credentialed scientists who postulate such ascientific (philosophical) notions as Many Worlds, Multiverses, and pre-big-bang Inflation.

Even though their thought experiments are not empirically provable or falsifiable, the questers feel that they are merely pushing the boundaries of Science, not promoting pseudoscientific "Woo". Perhaps Pigliucci's summary of the survey puts my own amateur thought experiments into context : "apparently, a good number of physicists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to quantum mechanics." Undaunted, they boldly explore the unknown territory, beyond the maps of orthodoxy, and warnings of "here be Metaphysics".

Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. I have no orthodoxy to be held accountable to. But then, neither do the speculating physicists. Yet, those self-effacing philosophical posters do appear to view classical pre-quantum physics as the "bible" of reality. Hence, they reject Scholastic Metaphysics (Thomas Aquinas) as “anti-science”. But Aristotle presented his own survey of unresolved open questions in Physics, as Philosophy, the study, not of anthro-morphic gods, but of generalized (idealized ; metaphorical) conjectures about the world beyond human senses. Ironically, some of those metaphysical questions are still unresolved, to this day*2.


Diffident : the opposite of Confidence. The noun "diffidence" comes from the Latin word diffidere, meaning "to mistrust" or "to lack confidence."
Note -- in this context, some TPF posters lack confidence in their own Reasoning ability, and in the role of rational Philosophy to discover truths about the real world, that are not subject to empirical scientific methods.

*1. Surveying the Attitudes of Physicists Concerning Foundational Issues of Quantum Mechanics :
Even though quantum mechanics has existed for almost 100 years, questions concerning the foundation and interpretation of the theory still remain.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00676

*2. The Foundational Questions Institute, FQXi, catalyzes, supports, and disseminates research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality, but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources.
https://www.anthony-aguirre.com/books/q ... -are-wrong

members often employed QM or speculative and theoretical physics as a springboard to posit a veritable cosmos of transcendent possibilities.
For my own part, the subject is only of interest to see what others do with it. I am not a physicist. — Tom Storm

I too am not a physicist, So anything I say about Quantum Physics on a philosophy forum should not be taken as an authoritative pronouncement on physical Science. As non-credentialed laymen, we're not revealing confirmed facts on TPF; just sharing ideas & opinions about open questions that have not been answered definitively by empirical methods. As Piggliucci said, some of them "smell like metaphysics". If professional scientists feel free to speculate on transcendent non-empirical possibilities (beyond space-time, or immaterial mathematical simulations), why should amateur philosophers feel bound to solid ground?

Some of the diffident posters on TPF -- bowing to supreme Science -- seem to think "feckless" philosophy should be limited to the self-imposed empirical rules of physical Science. Hence, even professional philosophers like Pigliucci have no right to philosophize beyond the current state of scientific knowledge. Ironically, some of the popular interpretations that the Foundational Issues survey listed are literally ascientific explorations of "transcendent possibilities". So as I said above, "according to the survey, it seems that I'm in good company, along with credentialed scientists who postulate such ascientific (philosophical) notions as Many Worlds, Multiverses, and pre-big-bang Inflation".

As Pigliucci noted, the current state of Quantum Physics and Cosmology is anything but "settled science". So, I don't feel so cowed by the technological prowess of Physical Science, that I cannot have a little fun with transcendent possibilities. My own area of interest ("favorite interpretation") is primarily item "e" in TClark's graphic : Information Theoretical. And that subject matter gets dangerously close to forbidden territory of Mind & Consciousness. Even the sober scientists studying IIT, admit to the "strong possibility" of New Agey Panpsychism. :gasp:


Feckless : weak, ineffective, incompetent, futile

Maybe, it's good that I have no professional credentials to be sullied when I express personal opinions on an internet forum. — Gnomon
That seems like a pretty facile statement. Having no professional credentials might also mean your opinions are not credible on this subject. — T Clark

Does The Philosophy Forum have minimum requirements for "professional credentials"? Do you have relevant accreditation to verify that your own "opinions are credible" on the subject of Philosophical Diffidence (deferring to Science on philosophical questions), and Foundational Questions of Physics? Based on what expertise do you label an expression of laymanship to be "facile"? Just askin'.

PS__The quote above sounds like a good example of "philosophical diffidence" : e.g. non-professional TPF posters have no right to comment on physical topics. Just stick to your facile logic-chopping.


Facile : (especially of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.

Laymanship : a person who does not belong to a particular profession or who is not expert in some field "For a layman, he knows a lot about the law."

Philosophical Logic Chopping : Using the technical tools of logic in an unhelpful and pedantic manner by focusing on trivial details instead of directly addressing the main issue in dispute.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... c-Chopping

What defines knowledge is that you can act on it. It is pragmatic. It is a model of reality that results in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion.

But that is understandable. While most official quantum interpretations just want to assimilate its mathematical structures to a classical metaphysics perspective, the woo-merchants are trying to assimilate them to their romantic notions about mind and spirit. The metaphysical grounding ain't even classical, but animistic or theistic. — apokrisis

Is that your official definition as an accredited expert on knowledge-in-general? Or is that just your layman's opinion on a debatable question? Can you give an example of "knowledge" you have contributed to this forum that has "resulted in the ability to affect reality in predictable fashion"? What "official quantum interpretation" do you accept as authoritative & definitive for settling differences of opinion on The Philosophy Forum?

Are you a credentialed expert on "woo mongering"? Or are you just placing a prejudical label on ideas that offend your personal belief system? What formal rules of evidence do you use to formulate your confidently expressed personal opinion? Can you cite book, chapter & verse to support your "interpretation" of "animistic or theistic woo". Or is it just juvenile schoolyard name-calling? Why should we accept your scientistic booing as "knowledge"?

The OP, and Pigliucci's Skeptical Inquirer article, were motivated by such knee-jerk responses to quantum & metaphysical topics, that are characteristic of philosophical diffidence toward the absolute authority of Supreme Science. Ironically, they are, in my personal experience, expressed boldly & concisely, in a manner similar to the well-rehearsed creed-doctrines of Ideologies & religions (e.g. Scientism). But, as a non-believer, I'm not committed to any particular doctrine of Physics or Metaphysics.

Philosophers typically divide knowledge into three categories: personal, procedural, and propositional.
http://sociology.morrisville.edu/readin ... ttened.pdf
Note -- which category do we discuss on this forum?

Scientism : excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis

What evidence led Guth to extend the Big Bang moment backward in space-time? Historically, the gathering evidence for anthropic initial settings made the BBT sound too much like a Creation Event. So, cosmologists went in search of plausible explanations for such large-scale organized structures that could be accidental, instead of intentional.


Evidence for cosmic inflation wanes
The biggest result in cosmology in a decade fades into dust
https://www.science.org/content/article ... tion-wanes

Cosmic Inflation :
It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

SPECULATION INTO THE TIME BEFORE TIME
Big%20Bang%20vs%20Inflation.jpg

Here is a summary of the argument you have presented in this discussion, as I understand it:

Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are controversial.
1. Qualified scientists can't agree on the proper interpretations or even if any interpretation is needed or possible.
2. Based on this, a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics says "there is at least one area of science where things appear to be characterized by utter confusion and lack of consensus : interpretations of quantum mechanics."
3. Based on that confusion and lack of consensus, Gnomon is justified in any speculation he makes about quantum mechanics or related metaphysics. — T Clark

Unstated assumptions : Speculation Bad! Metaphysics Bad!

Did you omit a prejudicial step, in your logical calculation of that damning conclusion from an unfavorable reading of the OP? Would you apply such biased reasoning (sophistry) to Massimo Pigliucci, too. In the Skeptical Inquirer article, he implied that he has had accusing fingers pointing at him. Following your logic, you could conclude that, " based on that confusion and lack of consensus" Pigliucci "is justified in any speculation . . . ." Not so easy to denigrate "a credible philosopher with adequate knowledge of quantum mechanics", is it?

Do you think the forum moderators should ban all posts that can be labeled by detractors as "metaphysics"? Should they change the name from The Philosophy Forum to The Empirical Science Forum, or perhaps the Anti-Meta-Physics Forum? What credible topics would we talk about? The possibility of creating a man-made black-hole universe in an atom smasher? Or is that too speculative? Where is the "evidence"?

Note -- TC, Generally, you seem to be more open-minded toward debatable ideas than the zealous "Anti-Woo Boo-Crew". So, I apologize if anything in this post sounds like a personal attack. It's hard to respond to smears without getting sh*t on your hands.


At Scientia Salon, philosopher Massimo Pigliucci admits to “always having had a troubled relationship with metaphysics.” He summarizes the reasons that have, over the course of his career, made it difficult for him to take the subject seriously. Surprisingly -- given that Pigliucci is, his eschewal of metaphysics notwithstanding, a professional philosopher -- none of these reasons is any good. Or rather, this is not surprising at all, since there simply are no good reasons for dismissing metaphysics -- and could not be, given that all purported reasons for doing so themselves invariably embody unexamined metaphysical assumptions. Thus, as Gilson famously observed, does metaphysics always bury its undertakers.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/03 ... ysics.html

Is the Big Bang a black hole? :
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ ... verse.html

As a science writer I was indeed professionally engaged in delving into varieties of woo mongering in the 1990s, from psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence, to all sorts.
So this was woo at the academic level - professors with labs. — apokrisis

Good for you! Does that professional "engagement" with word-processing certify your authority to label people's opinions with the technical term "woo". Did that "n*gger" word come from Physics or Psychology or Popular Science? Historically, Racists have justified their prejudice with scientific evidence. They too, "engaged" in propagating personal repugnance disguised as scientific facts.

How do you dismiss the opinions of professional physicists & neurologists, and cosmologists, some with labs, who entertain fringey notions of "psi, to quantum consciousness, to artificial intelligence". Their opinions are all over the internet, for those inclined to look. And they too, face institutional discrimination based on philosophical prejudice. Maybe "woo-boo" is actually a contest of political ideologies, not impartial Science.

The Ideology of Racism : Misusing Science to Justify Racial Discrimination :
https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article ... rimination

But anyhow, the way you throw the 2014 revision of the Bicep data into the conversation as some kind of "gotcha" is indicative of how little you are aware of the constraints on the conversation to be had. It shows you don't really know what you are talking about. — apokrisis

I'm not familiar with the "bicep data" that you claim I "threw" into the conversation as a "gotcha". Sounds like you know more about what I'm talking about than I do. Why don't you read my mind, and tell me more about that "bee in the bonnet". Or is it buzzing in your bonnet? You keep swatting at something I can't see. :joke:

This was the term you introduced into the discussion. — apokrisis

Actually, It was Pigliucci, who objected to the use of such a derisive slang term "woo" in a philosophical or scientific context. It's a short-hand emotive term for "I'm right, you're wrong", and avoids a lot of uncertainty & rational thinking. So, It is very popular among self-righteous posters on this forum. And, the question of "who introduced it", is moot.

Anyway, all of this hand-waving is beside the question, of "foundational issues of physics", which Pigliucci noted "smells like metaphysics". Are we discussing "settled" physics here, or questions that go beyond (meta) our understanding of physical reality? What are you so afraid of, that you feel the need to defend an orthodox interpretation of "foundational physics"? Did someone warn you that metaphysical ghosts will get you, if you stray from the true faith in physics?

I'm just kidding. I don't doubt that you know more than me about some technical aspects of borderline physics. But these "woo boo" diversions get tiresome, so I have to poke fun, in hopes of getting back on track : "philosophical diffidence" toward all-knowing Physics.

You may find it offensive. But it ain't racist. — apokrisis

In the immortal words of late-night TV philosopher Craig Ferguson, "you're a racist, man". He says, in response to any top-down authoritarian shout-down. :joke:

If I've misrepresented your argument, tell me which of my statements you don't agree with. Tell me what your conclusion is if not the one I state in the last bullet. — T Clark

Don't worry about it. Just as you read something from your own imagination into my posts, I read some un-stated assumptions into your post. So, we're even.

Now, we can get back to the OP question about philosophical deference (diffidence) to Gospel Science on the debatable fringes of Physics : "Foundational Questions of Physics". The survey found that there is no single "consensus" interpretation of those fundamental questions of physics*1. Yet, some interpreters like to pretend that borderline (meta-physical) issues are authoritatively settled, and beyond question*2.

Although I quoted part of Pigliucci's discussion about "What does it mean to interpret Quantum Physics", It would be helpful to read the whole Skeptical Inquirer article, so you won't go-off on a wild tangent. No need to imagine heretical beliefs on my part. Heresy assumes some unquestionable, orthodox opinion established by authoritarian priests.

Besides, does it strike you as ironic that such a "woo-monger", as others have mis-labeled me, would be reading Skeptical Inquirer magazine. I have subscribed to SI, and SKEPTIC magazines for over 40 years. So, I'm well-informed on the erroneous beliefs & methods of pseudo-science. Yet, I'm also well-aware of how defenders of the faith can rise-up in self-righteous anger at any un-conventional interpretations of the unsettled borderlands of knowledge. Philosophical pioneers, undaunted by inquisitors of orthodoxy, explore the realm of reputed dragons in search of philosophical wisdom. Besides, that fuzzy area off the map is not-yet settled Science, so it's open to interpretation.


*1. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum weirdness was proposed a century ago, in order to settle the acrimonious debates -- including accusations of "woo" -- that caused a great disturbance in the force of Physics. Several of the pioneers turned to Eastern philosophy -- often labeled derogatorily as "mysticism" -- in search of ways to interpret their counter-intuitive and non-classical observations. And the debate-goes-on to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

*2. Quantum mysticism :
Olav Hammer stated that Werner Heisenberg was so interested in India that he got the nickname "The Buddha". "However," states Hammer, "in Heisenberg's Physics and Philosophy (1959) there is no substantial trace of quantum mysticism;" and adds "In fact, Heisenberg discusses at length and endorses the decidedly non-mystical Copenhagen interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism