Why doesn't QM cancel itself?
Kenneth Miner
Why is the following argument invalid?
Premisses:
1) Quantum Mechanics turns up results that are counter to
standard Aristotelian logic.
2) These results are mathematical results.
3) Mathematics is reducable to standard Aristotelian logic.
Conclusion:
Quantum Mechanics cancels itself out.
Any comments gratefully appreciated.
// C * O * N * A * N
*%%%%%(=========================
\\ The Grammarian.
Ernie Fidgeon
ef
On 4 May 1999 12:48:58 GMT, mi...@lark.cc.ukans.edu (Kenneth Miner)
wrote:
Whether you think you can or you can't - you are right.
Henry Ford
Steve Gray
>1) Quantum Mechanics turns up results that are counter to
> standard Aristotelian logic.
>2) These results are mathematical results.
>3) Mathematics is reducable to standard Aristotelian logic.
>
logic. QM does not invalidate mathematics or logic.
Lapidary
mi...@lark.cc.ukans.edu (Kenneth Miner) wrote:
> Here is a question that has been bothering me for some time.
> Why is the following argument invalid?
>
> Premisses:
>
> standard Aristotelian logic.
Example ? (I suspect the problem lies in the interpretation --
it ususally does with QM).
> 2) These results are mathematical results.\
> 3) Mathematics is reducable to standard Aristotelian logic.
Not AFAIK...you need set theory.
There are many different kinds of logic and they are all
formal systems. QM is a consistent formal system which can
be simplified into a variety of logic -- quantum logic.
--
Regards,
Peter D Jones
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Brawley
news:7gmqbq$3in$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu...
> Here is a question that has been bothering me for some time.
> Why is the following argument invalid?
>
> Premisses:
>
> 1) Quantum Mechanics turns up results that are counter to
> standard Aristotelian logic.
> 3) Mathematics is reducable to standard Aristotelian logic.
>
>
> Quantum Mechanics cancels itself out.
>
> Any comments gratefully appreciated.
>
mechanics predicts tge outcomes of experiments in particle (quantum)
physics with such accuracy and precision that it would be
philosophically insane to reject it on the strength of such an
inverted piece of deduction as the above. Why didn't you conclude
"Standard Aristotelian logic must be flawed, or at the least, does
not represent the behaviour of the Real World?" or "Mathematics and
Standard Aristotelian logic do not necessarily reflect each other?
If you believe, since a rock is demonstrably mostly empty space,
that a rock is not "hard," go kick the sucker with your toe.
The Real World must always be allowed to supersede even the most
fascinating philosophical maundering.
Remember ("Matrix"-like): you cannot _prove_ that you either are, or
are not, a "brain in a box."
There are some philosophical conundra which are irresolvable as
stated, so in those cases, go kick the rock.
peace
--
JB
jbra...@jcn1.com
website at www.jcn1.com/jbrawley/
R. Knauer
wrote:
>Remember ("Matrix"-like): you cannot _prove_ that you either are, or
>are not, a "brain in a box."
If you take the existence of external objects as an axiom, you can
prove that you exist. That is the fundamental thesis of Classical
Realism.
BTW, what is a "brain in a box"?
Bob Knauer
"There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions
of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community."
-- Oscar Wilde
Aaron-Dirk Boyden
> If you take the existence of external objects as an axiom, you can
> prove that you exist. That is the fundamental thesis of Classical
> Realism.
I'd like to see how this proof is supposed to go, and I'd also like to
know what's meant by "the existence of external objects" in the axiom.
--
---
Aaron Boyden
"It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe
anything upon insufficient evidence." W. K. Clifford
R. Knauer
<Aaron-Di...@brown.edu> wrote:
>> If you take the existence of external objects as an axiom, you can
>> prove that you exist. That is the fundamental thesis of Classical
>> Realism.
>I'd like to see how this proof is supposed to go, and I'd also like to
>know what's meant by "the existence of external objects" in the axiom.
Assuming you are serious about Classical Realism, which is very
doubtful, you are going to have to read Aquinas and especially his
commentators Etienne Gilson (in particular "Being and Some
Philosophers" and "Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge") and
Joseph Bobik ("Aquinas on Being and Essence").
You can characterize Realism anyway you want, since it like all other
worldviews is ultimately a matter of personal preference. Western
scientists, however, especially physicists, have no choice but to
accept Realism, otherwise they are frauds.
If you accept the worldview of Realism, the proof of your existence
follows naturally. Any attempt to deny your existence results in a
logical contradiction, both from your own point of view (assuming you
are rational) and from the point of view of rational observers.
Once you accept the existence of external objects - objects external
to you - then you must accept the rationality of your own existence.
If you did not exist, then how could you know the existence of
external objects?
Of course if you are not rational, you will not be able to confirm
your own existence in a rational matter, but then that is why we have
universities - to keep lunatics away from the real world.
John Brawley
news:373431e5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
or
> >are not, a "brain in a box."
>
> prove that you exist. That is the fundamental thesis of Classical
> Realism.
"Resolution of paradox by FIAT? Sure, IF you make an axiom for it,
you can escape from any paradoxical mind-game....
> BTW, what is a "brain in a box"?
Old philosophical paradox. The film "Matrix" is founded on it, as
was the most recent new episode of the X-files.
Up shot is that you cannot prove (or disprove) that you are (or are
not) just a naked brain being fed neural impulses along the brain's
input/output nerve bundles. If all that you perceive MUST come to
"you" (the perceiver, the mind in the brain system, the self-aware
consciousness--which would presumably still be present if you could
support the brain's operation artificially, removing the body
completely)
through those nerve bundles, then supposedly an "infinitely capable"
computer, hooked up to your brain's input/output nerve bundles,
could simulate this "external world" (including your body) with such
perfection that by no internal/subjective means whatsoever could you
establish the fact (either that you were or were not this
brain-in-a-box).
As you see, your above "escape" from this paradox is 100%
artificial, one of those 'philosophical knee-jerk reactions' that
occur whenever philosophy is faced with an inherently irresolvable
paradox. Ain't an "axiom" a wonderful thing? (Not to me. I think
it's merely a way of stopping conversation/argument, as the concept
of a "limit" does for mathematics.)
Peace