Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Is reality 'bound by Logic'?

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 7:57:46 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
In quatum physics, a laymen interpretation is that a particle can be in super position, that is to say in 2 different orientations at the same time. This seems to be in opposition to the logical rule of contridiction. That a statement (shall we say entity) can not be in 2 states at the same time in the same sense.

Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensable to humans.'

I'm inclined to think there is not.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 1:32:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 7:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
In quatum physics, a laymen interpretation is that a particle can be in super position, that is to say in 2 different orientations at the same time. This seems to be in opposition to the logical rule of contridiction. That a statement (shall we say entity) can not be in 2 states at the same time in the same sense.

Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensable to humans.'

I'm inclined to think there is not.

I've heard/read lay people describe superposition that way, but have never seen a credible source on quantum physics describe it that way. My understanding is that superposition is just a probabilistic equation that indicates which position or state a particle could be in when observed, not that the particle is literally in two states or positions at once. Can you provide a link for your interpretation?

That said, I agree with your conclusion. Our rules of logic are just descriptions of how we believe things work in reality. If we are incapable of comprehending how some facet of reality works, that's our problem rather than a problem with reality.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 7:44:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 7:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
In quantum physics, a laymen interpretation is that a particle can be in super position, that is to say in 2 different orientations at the same time. This seems to be in opposition to the logical rule of contradiction. That a statement (shall we say entity) can not be in 2 states at the same time in the same sense.

Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensible to humans.'

I'm inclined to think there is not.

Nicely observed, Mhykiel! I agree with you, as I think would nearly all modern scientists.

By way of context, there was a tradition beginning with influential ancient Greek philosophers (like Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Anaxagoras) that logic should run the universe -- that in fact, it should be buried in the metaphysical order.

In early modern Science, that tradition continued with Kepler, Galileo and Newton, but the seeds of change were planted in the 17th and 18th centuries with the work of Francis Bacon and John Locke, and any hope that the universe would comply with logical presuppositions ended in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the work of Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr and Goedel.

Nowadays, virtually nobody doing basic research expects the universe to be logical; they work mostly with observed symmetries instead. But meanwhile, in popular culture, the universe is still logical, because that's how our traditions and language describe it.

So the roles of logic and math in science have shifted from being a prescriptive system -- which is much the way Kepler, Galileo and Newton used it -- to a descriptive system -- which is how most scientists use it after the 20th century. The shift is subtle, because scientists then and now still use logical and mathematical models to predict, and still accept observation as refutation; but changing logic from prescriptive to descriptive has shifted logic and math from a proof system for a reality, to an accounting system for knowledge -- and has put a mild strain on epistemology, in that the relationship between 'truth' and 'knowledge' now needs to be defined differently to the way philosophers used to (and many still try to) do it.

Anyway, scientists and philosophers of science tend to worry about this stuff, but few other people do. The fact that you've picked it up is impressive. If there's any info I can offer to assist, please ask.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 10:30:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 7:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
In quatum physics, a laymen interpretation is that a particle can be in super position, that is to say in 2 different orientations at the same time. This seems to be in opposition to the logical rule of contridiction. That a statement (shall we say entity) can not be in 2 states at the same time in the same sense.

That is why people suggested quantum logic.

Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensable to humans.'

I'm inclined to think there is not.

Although I am not sure how this relates to the first part, I'd agree with you.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 11:14:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 7:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
In quatum physics, a laymen interpretation is that a particle can be in super position, that is to say in 2 different orientations at the same time. This seems to be in opposition to the logical rule of contridiction. That a statement (shall we say entity) can not be in 2 states at the same time in the same sense.

Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensable to humans.'

I'm inclined to think there is not.

Nature has no choice but to be logical. It is only mankind that can be illogical. If nature doesn't fit in with mankind's preconceived ideas about how it should be, then, mankind will distort natural phenomenon to suit his or her own ambitions and hidden agendas. For example - A scientist requires that nature should be complicated so that he or she can acquire lots of prestige and power by having a secret knowledge of how nature works. Quantum mechanics is a good example of complicating nature and gaining a 'secret knowledge ticket of excellence' for understanding quantum mechanics. If mankind can make nature irrational, then, this improves his or her chances of gaining extra difficulty points and thus gains extra status and power points as well. Thus, we can see that modern science is largely based on a load of garbage nonsense. The general public are gullible enough to swallow this deception and to think of people who wear white coats as having some kind of super human powers of knowledge which they don't really have.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 12:19:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 1:32:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/30/2016 7:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
In quatum physics, a laymen interpretation is that a particle can be in super position, that is to say in 2 different orientations at the same time. This seems to be in opposition to the logical rule of contridiction. That a statement (shall we say entity) can not be in 2 states at the same time in the same sense.

Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensable to humans.'

I'm inclined to think there is not.

I've heard/read lay people describe superposition that way, but have never seen a credible source on quantum physics describe it that way. My understanding is that superposition is just a probabilistic equation that indicates which position or state a particle could be in when observed, not that the particle is literally in two states or positions at once. Can you provide a link for your interpretation?

That said, I agree with your conclusion. Our rules of logic are just descriptions of how we believe things work in reality. If we are incapable of comprehending how some facet of reality works, that's our problem rather than a problem with reality.

It could be proper to state it is in all possible positions at the same time. It is definitely not in one position prior to observation. Scientists don't like to describe exactly what it is while in a superposition because it is largely metaphysical. Any attempt to measure causes it to take on a position. There are attempts at using weak measurements which would not collapse the wave function, but it is limited as it more so uses large quantities of particles and uses aggregate results to identify a position or other measurement while in a super position.

Anyway it is a real wispy f'Ed up thing, so call it what ever one wants.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 9:11:44 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensable to humans.'

Even superficial knowledge of, for example. QM and relativity reveals that reality is counter-intuitive - I am not sure if that is the same thing as not being 'sensable' or 'sensible'! Certainly some aspects of QM/relativity can seem like nonsense - things being in more than one place at a time, time slowing down and speeding up, space is curved.... if you didn't know such things were true they'd seem like the ramblings of a madman!

Of course as our intuitions and 'common-sense' evolved in the low-speed, low-gravity environment of Earth it is not too surprising those intutions are unreliable - or downright wrong - when applied in more extreme circustances or at very small or very large length scales. As I said elsewhere,our brains evolved to find mates and avoid predators - any ability to ponder the meaning of reality is a side-effect so we don't find 'quantm reality' easy!

But while reality is counter-intuitive, it does appear to be subject to rules. We have discovered some of those rules, which we generally cast in the form of a mathematical equation. So while we can't really visualise what is going on in something like the two-slit experiment we can at least calculate what will happen.

Why does the universe follow rules? Why can't it be that 'anything goes'? Possibly for no good reason except an anthropic one - in a chaotic universe we wouldn't exist!

So the roles of logic and math in science have shifted from being a prescriptive system -- which is much the way Kepler, Galileo and Newton used it -- to a descriptive system -- which is how most scientists use it after the 20th century.


Or possibly vice versa! Certainly Newton considered his 'law of gravity' equation descriptive, not prescriptive. For Newton the universe was a product of God and the law of gravity described how God chose to make the universe, not how He must have made the universe.

Rather it is modern science that makes mathematics prescriptive. While or Newton et al it was God that under-pinned reality, for modern science it is mathematics and logical consistency. String theory is notorious for relying entirely on mathematical consistency and elegance for its justification. In many ways string theorists are like the ancient greeks - both believe that reality can be known by sitting at a desk with a pen and paper and thinking hard!

So I have to disagree with Ruv on that.

The 'go to' classic paper (not too long or technical) is Wigner's 'The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' https://www.dartmouth.edu...
Fly
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 6:18:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 7:57:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
In quatum physics, a laymen interpretation is that a particle can be in super position, that is to say in 2 different orientations at the same time. This seems to be in opposition to the logical rule of contridiction. That a statement (shall we say entity) can not be in 2 states at the same time in the same sense.

Is there any reason to accept 'Reality must be sensable to humans.'

I'm inclined to think there is not.

Reality is bound by logic, but only after the fact of reality having shown its boundaries first.

There is a fallacy known as the "marksmanship fallacy" where one fires a bullet into a wall, and then one draws a circle around the bullet hole and declares, "a perfect bullseye!"

Similarly, we examine reality and then at least attempt to draw a circle around it calling that circle "logic" metaphorically speaking.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz