Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Does QM undermine the LNC?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 7:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?

It doesn't in most interpretations I know of. Computationally you make the assumption that the particle is a superposition of all possible states (which of course violates LNC), but this is a probability calculation.

There are several interpretations such as the many-worlds hypothesis which are all untestable as far as I understand. The most QM seems it will do is refine out understanding of LNC rather than 'debunk' it.

QM will pump out it's incredible results and mind-bending predictions, but it seems we're a long way from understanding the underlying principles (especially if string theory is anything to go by) behind it.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 7:51:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?

You would have to show the two are mutually exclusive. It may be the case that they are like colors. A superposition may be the equivalent of a multicolored object.

I've also seen it argued that, something is either a superposition or not. So, it doesn't contradict the LNC.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 8:07:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It can never. In fact, incoherence as it applies in pedagogy stems from when the LNC is violated when a student misunderstands a concept or equation for what it is. It can only partially undermine it at the most but never fully simce for a there to be understanding a thing must not be taken for what it's not being taken for (LNC: a thing can't be and not be).
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 9:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?

No. The law of non-contradiction will never be debunked because it's not even possible for it to be false. Every time I run into somebody who denies the law of non-contradiction, they attempt to prove it false by the use of counter-examples. Well, there's two problems with that. First, a counter-example could never disprove a statement or claim unless the law of non-contradiction is true. After all, counter-examples are supposed to contradict the law of non-contradiction!

Second, every time somebody tries to bring up a counter-example to the law of non-contradiction, they always end up resorting to the fallacy of equivocation. For example, one time I challenged some people on beliefnet.com who denied logic to draw a square triangle. Several people suggested a pyramid with a square bottom. But that's equivocation. That's not a legitimate counter-example to the law of non-contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction is one of the most certain things we will ever know, and any violation of it is a sure sign of error.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Subutai
Posts: 3,172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 9:36:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?

Whoever you are running into that has said the LNC has been debunked needs to reassess their viewpoint. Logic, while not absolute, forms the fundamentals of human reasoning, and the LNC is virtually unassailable.

For wave-particle duality, light can either exist as a wave or a particle, but light cannot exist as simultaneously a wave and a particle, meaning there is no violation of the LNC. It depends on how the experiment is conducted and what the experiment is looking for that determines whether it is one or the other.

QM is a little more complicated. To truly follow the law of non-contradiction, an object cannot be F and not F at the same instant of time, in the same respect, and in the same sense. Examples of quantum phenomena do not display all of these characteristics, and thus aren't violations of the LNC.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 9:36:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 9:15:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?

No. The law of non-contradiction will never be debunked because it's not even possible for it to be false. Every time I run into somebody who denies the law of non-contradiction, they attempt to prove it false by the use of counter-examples. Well, there's two problems with that. First, a counter-example could never disprove a statement or claim unless the law of non-contradiction is true. After all, counter-examples are supposed to contradict the law of non-contradiction!

I forgot about that response. If you try to disprove the law of non-contradiction, you're assuming the law of non-contradiction. Complete self-refuting position.

Second, every time somebody tries to bring up a counter-example to the law of non-contradiction, they always end up resorting to the fallacy of equivocation. For example, one time I challenged some people on beliefnet.com who denied logic to draw a square triangle. Several people suggested a pyramid with a square bottom. But that's equivocation. That's not a legitimate counter-example to the law of non-contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction is one of the most certain things we will ever know, and any violation of it is a sure sign of error.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2014 10:53:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
QM undermines some versions of the LNC.

LNC follows traditional logic, and as such all statements fall into True, or False. You can add in unknown, and you can even add in fuzzy logic where a value can be somewhere in-between.

QM undermines a lot of the foundation of LNC by permitting one result to have two values. True and False as opposed to True or False. Having two positions would violate the LNC since having one position is usually considered to be exclusive. This can even be proven with the two slit experiment using weak measurements and the properties of a particle go though different slits.

LNC shouldn't be considered a Law. It's actually just an axiom, and as an axiom it can be true in one logic system, and accepted as a self evident fact, but in another system it might not even be true. Mathematics is full of these kinds of things. Like the difference between euclidean geometry and parabolic geometry. Axioms in one system are easily disprove in another system.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 1:26:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, because the the superposition is just a wave of possibilities. The cat is possibly dead and possibly alive, then when the measurement occurs, a definite state entails. It isn't like the cat is both dead or alive before measurement. That is a misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation. In the Many-Worlds Interpretation, the cat is alive in one world, but dead in another.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 8:53:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?

No, but QM does undermine (at least in Quantum logic) the principle of distributivity(http://en.wikipedia.org...) which you were probably taught in Discrete I in college or early in school when you took prepositional logic.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?

There are certainly interpretations of Quantum Physics in which that is the case, but you can also force the facts to fit into a conceptual framework differently. The OP is referencing discussions that make a category error of confusing epistemology with ontology, a very common error here on DDO and other internet discussion forums.

Classical Logic isn't about the physical world, it"s about propositions, it only exists in the realm of ideas. The LNC is an axiomatic law of thought, it isn't a law of nature, it doesn"t apply to the physical world, it only applies to propositions within a classical logic conceptual framework. There are plenty of other epistemological frameworks that either refute, or don't include the LNC. Denial of the absolute validity of the LNC is implicit in Godel's incompleteness theorem, in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, in the existence of non-Euclidean Geometries, and in many interpretations of a lot of the empirical results of Quantum Physics. Dialectical logic, Antinomies, Paraconsistent logics, Dialetheism, the philosophies of Hegel, Graham Priest, Kant"s Noumenon, Brouwer"s Intuitionism, Taoism, the Liar's Paradox, Russell's Paradox, a boatload of other self-referential paradoxes, they all deny or refute the LNC in some form or another.

The LNC is an epistemic axiom, it isn"t a law of nature and the universe is under no obligation to conform to our classical laws of thought or any other conceptual system of thought.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:55:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/18/2014 6:36:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
I've run into these physicist atheists who like to say "Yeah, well QM has DEBUNKED the law of non-contradiction!"

Or they talk about how light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

So do you think QM or light debunks the LNC?
No.
Superposition = I don't know, and I don't know doesn't violate LNC.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.