TPF : Quantum Philosophy

[Gnomon]

Considering how weird it is, and how not even the people who do it fully understand what is going on do you think there is a place for philosophy in this or should we just leave well enough alone. ___Darkneos

then I see someone trying to apply the principles or certain interpretations to philosophy such as this: — Darkneos

There is a good reason why philosophers are intrigued by Quantum Theory : Theory, per se, is informed metaphysical speculation, as opposed to practical physical research. And Metaphysics is the residue of ancient Philosophy that was left behind by Materialistic Science for "feckless" philosophers to play with. For several centuries, Materialism was the dominant worldview for scientists. But after quantum queerness emerged from slicing atoms into sub-atomic "particles", the foundation of Atomism/Materialism as a worldview was called into question.

Even so, most quantum physicists continue to "interpret" photons as-if they are petite balls of solid stuff. But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. This means that they are studied in terms of Metaphysics, rather than of material Physics. And that opens the door to philosophical speculation, which would never have been taken seriously before spooky Quantum Nature became the dominant theory of Reality.

Metaphysics :
1. the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
2. abstract theory with no basis in reality.
(i.e material reality)

[Gnomon]

Materialistic Science — Gnomon
You're awfully certain that there is such a thing. — magritte

Sure, I'm sure, because I read it in Wikipedia.

Scientific Materialism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientistic_materialism

Materialism : Philosophy
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

[Gnomon]

Even so, most quantum physicists continue to "interpret" photons as-if they are petite balls of solid stuff. — Gnomon
They absolutely do not. — Kenosha Kid

They still call it the Wave Function "of a particle". So, it seems that most physicists still treat holistic quantum level wave functions as-if they are tiny balls of stuff.

[Gnomon]

But others accept the fact that they consist of nothing more than abstract virtual mathematical information. — Gnomon
This is still debated but the answer seems to be no, they are made of fields. — Darkneos

That's what I said. A "field" is an abstract mathematical definition, not a physical object in the traditional sense. A "model" is an abstraction from physical reality, and can be studied only mathematically, not physically.

Quantum Field Theory : QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Quasiparticle : emergent phenomena that occur when a microscopically complicated system such as a solid behaves as if it contained different weakly interacting particles in vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle

Quasi- : seemingly; apparently but not really.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

[Gnomon]

As much as those who study Metaphysics WANT to believe that QM opens that door, they will be sorry to see it does not. — Darkneos

If the thing studied is not physical, what is it, if not meta-physical?

Non-physical : not tangible or concrete.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

Metaphysical : highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.

philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phil ... thematics/

[Gnomon]

All particles are described as waves. — Kenosha Kid

They may be described mathematically as waves, but they are portrayed graphically as balls. That's because the human mind can only imagine metaphysical abstractions as symbolic concrete images. It's a semantic difference, but applicable to this topic. Can you imagine the mathematical number "four" as a physical object? No, because it's a metaphysical object, for which we have names, but no realistic images. :joke:

scientific-atom-particle-silver-blue-against-white-background-31877912.jpg

Note: One of the numbers in the Schrödinger equation is imaginary.
1*Hqs36BsNte25f2bexB6SIQ.png

[Gnomon]

All particles are described as waves. — Kenosha Kid

OK. But it's still Metaphysics.

[Gnomon]

Gnomon, you remind me of the adage, "if someone ascribes an attribute to a system that is not in that system, the person ascribing is most likely very far from understanding that system."

Metaphysics is something I don't understand. I don't even have a remotely useful concept of the concept. So I leave it like that. I don't go comparing metaphysics to thought, to consciousness, to QM, to miracles, because I don't have a working concept of what metaphysics is.

I think those who don't quite have even a rudimentary knowledge of QM or even of classical phyisics, ought not to take ownership of physics, and declare how QM is an explanation to non-phyisics phenonmena. — god must be atheist

GMBA
I know that was a put-down. But, are you seriously implying that -- in your professional opinion -- Quantum phenomena do not belong in the Metaphysical "system". Apparently, you think I'm talking about Mysticism. But I'm simply following the lead of some professional Physicists and Information Theorists. So, I would agree that Quantum Fields do not belong in the Mystical system, But it does fall into the category of pure theoretical Mathematics, which is metaphysical, in the Aristotelian sense.

On a philosophical forum, you should "understand" Metaphysics, because it's the only part of ancient philosophy that has been left by "hard" empirical Scientists to feckless Philosophers, and to "soft" theoretical Physicists, such as Einstein. Even the big "E" couldn't reconcile his post-classical theories with the spooky empty-space-warping phenomenon of gravity.

Maybe the definition below will help you to understand Meta-Physics as Aristotle intended, not as "idle speculation" -- as attributed by some hard-nosed modern Materialists. Note the distinction between empirical "perception" and theoretical "conception". If you are thinking in terms of "classical physics", you are behind the eight-ball -- which is actually a hypothetical "wave" in a non-fluid immaterial field. :joke:


The Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics : Quantum mechanics, like any physical theory, comes equipped with many metaphysical assumptions and implications. The line between metaphysics and physics is often blurry, but as a rough guide, one can think of a theory's metaphysics as those foundational assumptions made in its interpretation that are not usually directly tested in experiment.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 0626-7_119
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-9344-1

Difference Between Metaphysics & Quantum Physics : Is quantum physics a metaphysics?
Although metaphysics and quantum physics deal with the scholarly examination of the surrounding world, the two approach the subject from two different disciplines, namely philosophy for metaphysics and hard science for quantum physics.
https://sciencing.com/use-plancks-constant-2378.html
Note : how "hard" is an invisible intangible Field that only exists in the imagination of a theoretical physicist?

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Is Math Metaphysical? : http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/24527

[Gnomon]

Again no. Also I wouldn't argue that four is a metaphysical object, it's a concept. — Darkneos

If the number "four" is not a Metaphysical Object, does that mean it's a Physical object? If so, what is it's Being, Existence, and Reality? Are "concepts" Real or Ideal? Is Mathematics "fundamental" or trivial?

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental questions, including the nature of concepts like being, existence, and reality.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Category:Co ... etaphysics
Note : not exploring mystical questions

[Gnomon]

And there is some relevance to my tangent here, in that modern physicists don't focus too much on metaphysical claims of what something "really" is. — Mijin

Yes. I'm aware that most physicists don't do metaphysics. But philosophers do. And this is a philosophical forum, is it not?. So, why not consider Metaphysical interpretations of Quantum Theory? Classical physics was turned upside-down by quantum queerness. That's because the substructure of reality was no longer viewed as solid little balls of stuff. The foundations of Reality are now described as invisible formless Fields of abstract intangible mathematical Information. As noted in my post above, those waving fields of nothingness cannot be seen in microscopes, but only in the form of abstract equations.

So, if physicists now think of particles as continuous waves in "fields" (wholes), why do some on this forum insist on referring to waves-in-an-empty-ocean as "parts" (particles)? A Field is sometimes defined as a "physical quantity", but it's actually a Quality, quantified in terms of metaphysical numbers (what color is four?). Quantum phenomena such as "Entanglement" are Holistic, not particularistic. I suspect that even analytical physicists are human, and can't relate realistically to amorphous generalities. Besides, they need measurable specifics (countable things) in order to do their math.

If philosophers, including us amateurs, are not allowed to focus on "metaphysical claims", what's left for us to argue about : second principles?

Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Ontology : the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

Ontic : relating to entities and the facts about them; relating to real as opposed to phenomenal existence.
Note : Ontic investigations ask "what something really is". Particles are "phenomenal" (appearances), while Fields are "noumenal" (fundamental). Perhaps, both are "Real", but viewed from different perspectives.

According to Kant, it is vital always to distinguish between the distinct realms of phenomena and noumena. Phenomena are the appearances, which constitute the our experience; noumena are the (presumed) things themselves, which constitute reality.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm