Collapse as a physical process
John Baez
Charles Francis <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <b7nb7e$r0d$1...@glue.ucr.edu>, John Baez <ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu>
>writes:
>>Almost everybody is in favor of "physical reality" - it's just
>>like motherhood and apple pie. However, few of its outspoken
>>advocates clearly state what they mean by this term. And if you
>>ask what they mean, they often roll their eyes and say "What?
>>You don't know what *reality* is? Shocking - and you call yourself
>>a physicist!"
>>
>>This is an effective trick, but it doesn't answer the question.
>>
>>Personally, I find it best to avoid using the word "reality" in
>>serious discussions of philosophy and physics. This is *not* because
>>I don't like reality. It's great - I support it 100%! Anyone who
>>doesn't like reality should leave.
>Isn't that just like rolling your eyes' and saying "What? You don't know
>what *reality* is? Shocking - and you call yourself a physicist!"
>except that you can't actually say it because you don't want to use the
>word?
No, I was parodying how some people uncritically support realism.
I was also parodying how certain American "patriots" react when their
countrymen express any complaints about the USA: "love it or leave
it", as the expression goes. I was also setting up an analogy between
the two.
Maybe I should be more explicit: just as patriotism is the last refuge
of the scoundrel in politics, realism is the last refuge of the
scoundrel in physics. In both cases people try to exploit the
wholesome connotations of an idea ("the nation", "reality") to prevent
critical discussion about it, by trying to make people who raise
questions look bad. Of course, not all patriots are scoundrels, nor
are all realists! Indeed, both "patriotism" and "realism" cover
an enormous amount of ground.
>Why wouldn't you find it adequate to assume that something exists
>and define the word reality to refer to whatever it is that exists?
If "reality" means "what exists",
and "realism" means "believing that reality exists",
then I am a realist,
because I believe that what exists, exists.
However, I fail to see how believing this tautology gets me very far.
Thus I suspect that "realists" mean something more by the words
"reality" and "realism" than this. And until they tell me what they
mean by these words, I can't count on understanding them.
This is all the more true since I've read enough philosophy to know
that "realism" has meant many different things to many different
thinkers - and rarely anything so tautological as what I just
described.
>It is only the word that needs definition, not reality itself.
Whew - that's a relief! I don't even know what it *means* to define
something other than a word, or more generally some sort of symbol.
>Isn't this just a simple case of obfuscation caused by confusing
>a word, or rather the meaning of a word with the object to which
the word refers?
No: I'm not asking anyone to step outside, grab "reality" by
the scruff of the neck, and "define" it.
I'm just saying that when people discuss quantum mechanics and
argue about whether the wavefunction or something else "has
physical reality", they should say what they mean by this if
they expect me to understand them!
(I'm posting this to sci.physics since it's not
narrowly enough focused on physics to be accepted on
sci.physics.research.)
Edward
> Maybe I should be more explicit: just as patriotism is the last refuge
> of the scoundrel in politics, realism is the last refuge of the
> scoundrel in physics.
Maybe you "should" be more explicit John and more clearly point out that not
all patriots are political scoundrels either.
Edward
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> (I'm posting this to sci.physics since it's not
> narrowly enough focused on physics to be accepted on
> sci.physics.research.)
Yah think?
Socks
Bill Vajk
> Yah think?
It is actually a big statement. Funny how "reality" has
drifted into obscurity for this historical timeframe.
There was a time you could tell the difference between
a musician and a physcist by his definition of sound.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
[#] jpturcaud
Your level of awereness is exceptional and your post as a result is very
very refreshing !
Best regards
--
Jean-Paul Turcaud
Hydro & Mining Prospector
Pioneer of Australian Mining
Discoverer of Telfer; Kintyre & Nifty Mines in The Great Sandy Desert.
Discoverer of the South Atlantic Submarine Gold Placers
_ 40 Millions Tons estimate _
Founder of The TRUE GEOLOGY
* The Greatest Australian Mining Covered Up Swindle Of The 20th Century
http://membres.lycos.fr/jpturcaud/
* The True Geology ( previously Refutation of the Horrid Geological Myths )
http://membres.lycos.fr/xxx/ ( Not available due to plagiarism hazards )
Breaking News
"THE GOLDEN RULE"
"Gold and Intrigue in the Desert"
"The true story of the discovery of the Telfer gold mine"
Author : Bob Sheppard, President of the Australian Prospectors' Union
Author's contact & web page : www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/
Order from : Hesperian Press, PO Box 317 Victoria Park, 6979 W.Australia.
AUS 40.00 + post
Official launching done in Perth this 15th December 2002
~~Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ! ~~
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3EA386CE...@hotmail.com...
wch...@charter.net
"Edward" <so...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b7vh7r$lcc$1...@usc.edu...
"...Of course, not all patriots are scoundrels, nor