Quantum Wittgenstein

[israel socratus]

Quantum Wittgenstein
Metaphysical debates in quantum physics don’t get at ‘truth’ –
they’re nothing but a form of ritual, activity and culture
-----
/Timothy Andersenis principal research scientist
at Georgia Tech Research Institute/ Edited by Sally Davies
------
https://aeon.co/essays/how-wittgenstein-might-solve-both-philosophy-and-quantum-physics

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com>:

>Quantum Wittgenstein
>
He's EVERYWHERE! (Normal distribution, of course...)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[israel socratus]

Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely convincing, when other say:
''If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it'' /John Wheeler/
''Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense'' /Roger Penrose/

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
<socrat...@gmail.com>:

>Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely convincing...
>
Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
assuming that this is accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
above reference...

"Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April
1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."

....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.

*Of course, if you were referring to some other Wittgenstein
the above is irrelevant; if that is the case, please say so.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2022-05-14 16:48:21 +0000, Bob Casanova said:

> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not
>> entirely convincing...
>>
> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
> assuming that this is accurate:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>
> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
> above reference...
>
> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April
> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>
> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.

Yes, but unfortunately philosophy is a discipline that encourages
claims of much greater expertise and knowledge than one has. Think of
Thomas Kuhn.

Nonetheless, there are some philosophers who know what they are talking
about: think of Maureen O'Malley, though she has not, as far as I know,
pontificated about quantum mechanics.

>
> *Of course, if you were referring to some other Wittgenstein
> the above is irrelevant; if that is the case, please say so.

There is always his brother Paul, but he probably knew less about it
than Ludwig.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
>>convincing...
>>
> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
> assuming that this is accurate:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>
> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
> above reference...
>
> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April
> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>
> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>
> *Of course, if you were referring to some other Wittgenstein
> the above is irrelevant; if that is the case, please say so.
>>

The same applies to everyone born before about 1800 so your criteria limits
academic achievement too severely to be of any value.

[Burkhard]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 16:48:21 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not
>>> entirely convincing...
>>>
>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>> assuming that this is accurate:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>
>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>> above reference...
>>
>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April
>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>>
>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>
> Yes, but unfortunately philosophy is a discipline that encourages claims
> of much greater expertise and knowledge than one has.

Mhh - did either of you actually read the paper that was linked to?
Wittgenstein is not evoked as an authority on quantum mechanics. He is
evoked as an expert on the way languages (including formal languages
like mathematics) work. He is used by the author for a critique of
(some) physicists who try to become (bad) philosophers, by imbuing QM of
metaphysical or philosophical meaning, either intentionally or
unintentionally by trying to "explain beyond what the mathematical
formula say".

So it boils down to issues such as "is the Schroedinger cat thought
experiment" ultimately more confusing than illuminating", and what it
means to "understand" a formula - issues that have less to do with
physics than how we use thought experiments, visualizations and
metaphors - and on these issues his expertise, whether you agree with
him or nor, is on point I'd say

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
> >convincing...
> >
> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
> assuming that this is accurate:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>
> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
> above reference...
>

> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 ˆ 29 April

> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>
> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.

So you would argue the same for Bertrand Russell?
(who of course was quite unknown to Wittgenstein)

Jan

[William Hyde]

Am I missing a joke here?

William Hyde

[israel socratus]

An interesting search for relatives, namesakes and
acquaintances Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein

[erik simpson]

It may be possible for a grad student to be unknown by or of his adviser at Trinity
College, but it's not usual.

[William Hyde]

On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 5:31:07 PM UTC-4, socrat...@gmail.com wrote:
> An interesting search for relatives, namesakes and
> acquaintances Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein

Ravel's "Concerto for the left hand" was commissioned by Paul Wittgenstein, a concert pianist who lost his right arm in WWI.

Having given away his fortune Ludwig earned money for his post WWI move to Cambridge by designing a house for one of his brothers. I wonder if it still stands.

William Hyde

[Burkhard]

His sister, Margaret Stonborough-Wittgenstein And yes, it still stands
and is now protected - it houses the Bulgarian embassy I think. But I
don't think he made money from it - quite on the contrary , his design
became so expensive that she refused to pay, at which point he bought a
lottery ticket in the hope to finance its completion, or so I was told

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2022 12:35:50 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
>>>convincing...
>>>
>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>> assuming that this is accurate:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>
>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>> above reference...
>>

>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 ? 29 April

>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>>
>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>>
>> *Of course, if you were referring to some other Wittgenstein
>> the above is irrelevant; if that is the case, please say so.
>>>
>
>The same applies to everyone born before about 1800 so your criteria limits
>academic achievement too severely to be of any value.
>

Perhaps you should inform the OP of this issue...

Oh, and the subject was not born before 1800, as you'd know
if you bothered to read the reference before posting. In
fact, he was about 30 when QM became fully developed in
1920.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2022 19:23:00 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>:

>On 2022-05-14 16:48:21 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not
>>> entirely convincing...
>>>
>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>> assuming that this is accurate:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>
>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>> above reference...
>>
>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April
>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>>
>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>
>Yes, but unfortunately philosophy is a discipline that encourages
>claims of much greater expertise and knowledge than one has. Think of
>Thomas Kuhn.
>

That does indeed seem to be the case far too often. We even
have "philosophers" who post here, and claim the same
expertise.

>
>Nonetheless, there are some philosophers who know what they are talking
>about: think of Maureen O'Malley, though she has not, as far as I know,
>pontificated about quantum mechanics.
>>
>> *Of course, if you were referring to some other Wittgenstein
>> the above is irrelevant; if that is the case, please say so.
>
>There is always his brother Paul, but he probably knew less about it
>than Ludwig.
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:12:24 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
>> >convincing...
>> >
>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>> assuming that this is accurate:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>
>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>> above reference...
>>

>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 à 29 April

>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>>
>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>
>So you would argue the same for Bertrand Russell?
>(who of course was quite unknown to Wittgenstein)
>

Are you advancing Russell as an expert in QM? Interesting...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 May 2022 19:02:32 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 16:48:21 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not
>>>> entirely convincing...
>>>>
>>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>>> assuming that this is accurate:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>
>>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>>> above reference...
>>>
>>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 – 29 April
>>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>>>
>>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>>
>> Yes, but unfortunately philosophy is a discipline that encourages claims
>> of much greater expertise and knowledge than one has.
>
>
>Mhh - did either of you actually read the paper that was linked to?
>

As noted, I was addressing specifically the understatement
to which I referred ("Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert
in quantum physics is not entirely convincing..."). I agreed
that it *far* exceeded "not entirely convincing".

>
>Wittgenstein is not evoked as an authority on quantum mechanics. He is
>evoked as an expert on the way languages (including formal languages
>like mathematics) work. He is used by the author for a critique of
>(some) physicists who try to become (bad) philosophers, by imbuing QM of
>metaphysical or philosophical meaning, either intentionally or
>unintentionally by trying to "explain beyond what the mathematical
>formula say".
>
>So it boils down to issues such as "is the Schroedinger cat thought
>experiment" ultimately more confusing than illuminating", and what it
>means to "understand" a formula - issues that have less to do with
>physics than how we use thought experiments, visualizations and
>metaphors - and on these issues his expertise, whether you agree with
>him or nor, is on point I'd say
>
>
>>Think of Thomas Kuhn.
>>
>> Nonetheless, there are some philosophers who know what they are talking
>> about: think of Maureen O'Malley, though she has not, as far as I know,
>> pontificated about quantum mechanics.
>>>
>>> *Of course, if you were referring to some other Wittgenstein
>>> the above is irrelevant; if that is the case, please say so.
>>
>> There is always his brother Paul, but he probably knew less about it
>> than Ludwig.
>>
>>

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:12:24 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> >> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
> >> >convincing...
> >> >
> >> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
> >> assuming that this is accurate:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
> >>
> >> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
> >> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
> >> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
> >> above reference...
> >>

> >> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 √ 29 April

> >> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
> >> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
> >> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
> >>
> >> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
> >> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
> >
> >So you would argue the same for Bertrand Russell?
> >(who of course was quite unknown to Wittgenstein)
> >
> Are you advancing Russell as an expert in QM? Interesting...

You are displaying your ignorance of the history of the subject,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Merely light sarcasm. (at the expense of Bob)
I always find it kind of strange when people assume
that philosophers like Wittgenstein are into their own thing only,
and quite unaware of developments in the world around them,

Jan

[israel socratus]

Science does not play with subjective opinions (even those expressed
by as great scientists as Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein)

[J. J. Lodder]

israel socratus <socrat...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Science does not play with subjective opinions (even those expressed
> by as great scientists as Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein)

Fine. What is objective about the Copenhagen interpretation,
or for that matter, any interpretation of quantum mechanics?

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 10:54:33 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 14, 2022 at 2:16:07 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>> > > <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > >Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
>> > > >convincing...
>> > > >
>> > > Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>> > > assuming that this is accurate:
>> > >
>> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>> > >
>> > > ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>> > > had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>> > > various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>> > > above reference...
>> > >

>> > > "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 à 29 April

>> > > 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>> > > primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>> > > philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>> > >
>> > > ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>> > > in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>> > So you would argue the same for Bertrand Russell?
>> > (who of course was quite unknown to Wittgenstein)
>>
>> Am I missing a joke here?
>
>Merely light sarcasm. (at the expense of Bob)
>I always find it kind of strange when people assume
>that philosophers like Wittgenstein are into their own thing only,
>and quite unaware of developments in the world around them,
>

Perhaps you could show where I claimed that he was "unaware
of the world around him"? You can even still read what I
wrote, if you feel so inclined (since apparently you failed
to do so), and try to wrap your head around the fact that
"not an expert" in not synonymous with "unaware of the
world". I'm rooting for you, even though you sound a bit
like Bill the Refrigerant.

[Burkhard]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:12:24 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
>>>> convincing...
>>>>
>>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>>> assuming that this is accurate:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>
>>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>>> above reference...
>>>

>>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 ˆ 29 April

>>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>>>
>>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>>
>> So you would argue the same for Bertrand Russell?
>> (who of course was quite unknown to Wittgenstein)
>>
> Are you advancing Russell as an expert in QM? Interesting...
>>

You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
about QM"
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up

Interesting you should find this interesting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:54:36 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:12:24 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
>>>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not entirely
>>>>> convincing...
>>>>>
>>>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
>>>> assuming that this is accurate:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
>>>>
>>>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
>>>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
>>>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
>>>> above reference...
>>>>

>>>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 à 29 April

>>>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
>>>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
>>>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
>>>>
>>>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
>>>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
>>>
>>> So you would argue the same for Bertrand Russell?
>>> (who of course was quite unknown to Wittgenstein)
>>>
>> Are you advancing Russell as an expert in QM? Interesting...
>>>
>
>You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
>Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
>about QM"
>https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>
>Interesting you should find this interesting.
>

I stand corrected. I was only aware of him as a philosopher;
I was unaware that he was a physicist. Thanks.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-15 18:25, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:54:36 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

>> You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
>> Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
>> about QM"
>> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>>
>> Interesting you should find this interesting.
>>
> I stand corrected. I was only aware of him as a philosopher;

I thought he made teapots. Possibly ones that contain themselves.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 21:01:42 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

>On 2022-05-15 18:25, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:54:36 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>
>>> You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
>>> Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
>>> about QM"
>>> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>>>
>>> Interesting you should find this interesting.
>>>
>> I stand corrected. I was only aware of him as a philosopher;
>
>I thought he made teapots. Possibly ones that contain themselves.
>

Hmmm...I thought that was some dude named Klein...?

Or was it a demon with a pentagram drawn on his belly?*

* Reference on request. ;-)

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-15 22:17, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 21:01:42 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
> <agi...@gm.invalid>:
>
>> On 2022-05-15 18:25, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:54:36 +0100, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>>
>>>> You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
>>>> Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
>>>> about QM"
>>>> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>>>>
>>>> Interesting you should find this interesting.
>>>>
>>> I stand corrected. I was only aware of him as a philosopher;
>>
>> I thought he made teapots. Possibly ones that contain themselves.
>>
> Hmmm...I thought that was some dude named Klein...?

AFAIK, Klein designed jars, not teapots.

But I was mistaken. It was Russell's Tea Set that contained itself, not
his teapot.

Oddly, he started designing tea sets fifty years before he designed his
first teapot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:26:31 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

>On 2022-05-15 22:17, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 21:01:42 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
>> <agi...@gm.invalid>:
>>
>>> On 2022-05-15 18:25, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:54:36 +0100, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>>>
>>>>> You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
>>>>> Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
>>>>> about QM"
>>>>> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting you should find this interesting.
>>>>>
>>>> I stand corrected. I was only aware of him as a philosopher;
>>>
>>> I thought he made teapots. Possibly ones that contain themselves.
>>>
>> Hmmm...I thought that was some dude named Klein...?
>
>AFAIK, Klein designed jars, not teapots.
>

Of course! (Although I learned it as "bottles".)

>
>But I was mistaken. It was Russell's Tea Set that contained itself, not
>his teapot.
>
>Oddly, he started designing tea sets fifty years before he designed his
>first teapot.
>

Obviously, he used a Klein bottle to bend time...

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-15 23:03, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:26:31 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
> <agi...@gm.invalid>:
>
>> On 2022-05-15 22:17, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 21:01:42 -0600, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by André G. Isaak
>>> <agi...@gm.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-05-15 18:25, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:54:36 +0100, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>>> You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
>>>>>> Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
>>>>>> about QM"
>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting you should find this interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I stand corrected. I was only aware of him as a philosopher;
>>>>
>>>> I thought he made teapots. Possibly ones that contain themselves.
>>>>
>>> Hmmm...I thought that was some dude named Klein...?
>>
>> AFAIK, Klein designed jars, not teapots.
>>
> Of course! (Although I learned it as "bottles".)

No. I'm pretty sure it was a jar. The Klein.jar. He was apparently
heavily into Java.

[J. J. Lodder]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[second reply]

Quite dated obviously, but otoh it is obvious
that Russell was active in the widely raging debates (~1930)
about what quantum mechanics was all about, and what it meant.

Many people are misled by 'history of physics' texts
presenting a chain of progress: A did this, then B published that,...
as if those things happened in a vacuum.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

In particular Russell emphasized that the micro world
need not (and is not) a miniature copy of the macro world.
(still not clear to some people a hundred years later)

The electron is not a glittering metal ball, like from a ball bearing,
only much smaller.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 May 2022 22:54:36 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 May 2022 20:12:24 +0200, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
> >>
> >>> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 13 May 2022 23:25:54 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by israel socratus
> >>>> <socrat...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Referring to Wittgenstein as an expert in quantum physics is not
> >>>>> entirely convincing...
> >>>>>
> >>>> Assuming you're referring to Ludwig Wittgenstein*, and
> >>>> assuming that this is accurate:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
> >>>>
> >>>> ....I'd say that's quite an understatement, since AFAICT he
> >>>> had zero expertise in physics; he was a noted philosopher in
> >>>> various subjects, but that's all. The first sentence of the
> >>>> above reference...
> >>>>

> >>>> "Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (26 April 1889 √ 29 April

> >>>> 1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked
> >>>> primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the
> >>>> philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language."
> >>>>
> >>>> ....indicates essentially zero qualifications for expertise
> >>>> in such an esoteric branch of physics as QM.
> >>>
> >>> So you would argue the same for Bertrand Russell?
> >>> (who of course was quite unknown to Wittgenstein)
> >>>
> >> Are you advancing Russell as an expert in QM? Interesting...
> >>>
> >
> >You mean Bertrand Russel, the author of "The ABC of the theory of
> >Relativity" and "The analysis of Matter", the first part of which is
> >about QM"
> >https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
> >
> >Interesting you should find this interesting.
> >
> I stand corrected. I was only aware of him as a philosopher;
> I was unaware that he was a physicist. Thanks.

You were not without hints,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I think he probably meant what he wrote, i.e. Bertrand Russell.

> the author of "The ABC of the theory of Relativity" and "The analysis
> of Matter", the first part of which is about QM"
> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>
> Interesting you should find this interesting.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[jillery]

Oh dear, this topic has turned into an "L"- hole.

>> the author of "The ABC of the theory of Relativity" and "The analysis
>> of Matter", the first part of which is about QM"
>> https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.221533/page/n7/mode/2up
>>
>> Interesting you should find this interesting.

--

You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[israel socratus]

-------
According to SRT quantum particle (electron) cannot be a solid
"a glittering metal ball, like from a ball bearing", it means that an electron/photon
can change its form and all other parameters according to Lorentz transformation laws.
------
Einstein once said about particle physics: "Why do we study some many particles?
Understand really what is an electron would be enough."
#
To a request to explain what an electron really is supposed to be
we can only answer, “It is part of the A B C of physics”.
/ Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington/
#
''There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave ... in exactly the same way
as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way... ''
/ Richard P. Feynman /
#
“We know the electron by what it does, not by what it is.” /Somebody/
------

[Burkhard]

And also an ahistoric divisions between disciplines. What people think
of today as academic philosophy is a rather recent phenomenon, and right
up to the early 20th century people moved much more between disciplines.
We today might find it odd that in the Analysis of Matter, a discussion
of physics (dated now, as you say, but pretty much current then) is
followed by a discussion of human perception, and the nature of
knowledge, which makes them think "ahh, it is really a philosopher with
a side-serving of physics" - but of course that is the very same
pattern that we find in say Helmholtz' work (Russell being 24 when
Helmholtz died)

>
> Jan
>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 May 2022 23:28:31 -0600, the following appeared

Aargghhh!

You win... ;-)

[Glenn]

""Conventionally, people think that the electron is round like a little ball. But some advanced theories of physics speculate that it's not round, and so what we've done is designed an experiment to check with a very, very high degree of precision," said lead author Jony Hudson, from Imperial. "

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13545453

Is 'glittering" only a manifestation occurring in the macro world?

[J. J. Lodder]

What a waste of words, merely to avoid saying
that they attempted to measure the electron's electric dipole moment.
(and they didn't, they merely set an upper limit)
This is what it is really all about. [1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_electric_dipole_moment>

> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-13545453
>
> Is 'glittering" only a manifestation occurring in the macro world?

You could define glittering quarks, I suppose,
but that would be something else altogether,

Jan

[1] The standard model predicts a tiny electric dipole moment,
way beyond the experimental limits.
(a higher order effect of the magnetic dipole moment)
A much larger one implies the need for new physics,
hence the search.

[Glenn]

I think you're a dipole moment.

[J. J. Lodder]

I can't help wondering how highly talented misfits like Bertrand Russell
would fare in the modern regimented academic climate.
I can't imagine him writing research proposals.

He would probably do something else altogether,

Jan

[Lawyer Daggett]

He would buy Twitter. Not for any reason that might immediately come to you,
but in order to investigate this odd practical experiment in how language evolves.
I would expect some brilliant work in breaking down and understanding what
it says about human intelligence followed by a chaotic period as that understanding
took root. This would bring us to a critical nexus with many uncertain futures. The
best would be him retreating to some remote cave or mountain top for a few decades
to reset, perhaps to then emerge with a message that saves humanity. Another
possibility is that he sees no hope and so leverages the platform to initiate some
form of Armageddon in order to push a different sort of reset button.

[J. J. Lodder]

You have the erroneous idea (common among Americans)
that English lords are all very rich?

Russell himself encountered that idea frequently, while there,
and it greatly annoyed him.
(he really needed his income from lecturing and writing
to make a living, and he went broke when wwii broke out)

Jan

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'd say the stereotype of the broke English lord struggling to make ends meet and keep up appearances is pretty well known here in America.

[Lawyer Daggett]

No, I don't have the erroneous idea that English Lords are very rich. However,
I do have the idea that a smart person who wanted to can make billions if
they are so inclined. Better still, he can figure out how to buy things with other
people's money. The framework was afterall, Russell in a modern world. I am
presuming that his powers of observation would have enlightened him to these
distinctions from his world. But the important thing is that you found a way to
force-feed an ungrounded insult into your retort.

[J. J. Lodder]

Certainly, but this was before WWII.
Rich Americans already knew better,
because they married off their heiresses
to struggling lords in need of a fortune,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Replacing one American myth with another.

> Better still, he can figure out how to buy things with other
> people's money. The framework was afterall, Russell in a modern world.

My gues is that he would end a suicide,
like he almost did in his own time.
It was his grandiose project that kept him alive, I guess.

> I am presuming that his powers of observation would have enlightened him
> to these distinctions from his world. But the important thing is that you
> found a way to force-feed an ungrounded insult into your retort.

???

Jan