Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Platts
I respectfully disagree:
|
Of course you disagree. That is completely predictable, and therefore demonstrably not dependent on quantum mechanics.
Quote:
|
The more stripped down version of two empirically equivalent theories is not necessarily preferable. Consider a grand master-level chess-playing computer. Your job is to predict its next move. One can treat it as a black box and predict its moves based on chess strategy, or one can take it apart and attempt to reverse engineer its circuitry and decompile the software. The preferable approach depends on one's purposes. But taking the former approach does not prove that there is no rich inner life taking place inside the box.
|
If there is a rich inner life then presumably that rich inner life is reflected in the strategies and specific responses to board positions that result. Hence a prediction predicated on an understanding of the inner workings would be more accurate than a "black box" prediction. In that case the two models not produce exactly the same predictions and they are in fact different models/different theories.
It is generally an understanding of the "rich inner life" that permits one to construct a more precise theory than one constructed in absence of that knowledge. In practice one cannot usually find the transfer function for the black box without knowing quite a bit about what goes on inside, enough to construct a detailed model of it.
That is why thermodynamics identifies state variables, why the explanation of classical thermodynamics by statistical physics is important, and why Kalman's state space approach to control theory was such a major advancement over the older transfer function approach of servomechanism theory. Science recognizes the advantage of understanding what happens inside a black box and most certainly is not satisfied with black boxes.
Your characterization of physicista as being satisfied with black box approaches is quite far off the mark.
Quote:
|
There is an analogous situation in evolutionary theory: gene centered selection theories are basically empirically equivalent to selection theories that emphasize hierarchical selection involving individual organisms and groups of organisms. But the gene selection theories treat organisms and groups as black boxes and are (rightly, in my view) derided as mere "bookkeeping" models that don't capture the full richness of what is actually going on in nature.
|
Evolutionary theories are notoriously non-quantitative, but gene centered theories offer real hope of producing truly quantitative models. I simply cannot believe that black box bookkeeping models can be relied upon to produce 100% agreement with theories based on fundamental science.
Quote:
|
Similarly, before much progress in neurology was possible, behaviorism of the B.F. Skinner variety was a popular approach to the study of the human consciousness. Behaviorism treats consciousness as the product a black box and cares not at all how particular behaviors are produced; behaviorism was merely concerned with predicting future behavior. Needless to say, treating the human skull as a black box is not very philosophically satisfying.
|
Here you have clearly departed from any sort of quantitative models at all. If you think this example is relevant, then please provide and explanation of how these models are in the 100% agreement that was assumed in the post with which you disagree.
Quote:
|
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treats the Heisenberg limited regime as a black box; that is, it is a "behavioristic" theory of physics--it's mere bookkeeping in other words. Unfortunately, because of the HUP, there is no prospect of directly looking inside as is possible with modern neurological techniques.
|
What is the "Heisenberg limited regime" ? And what in the hell does that have to do with "modern neurological techniques ?
Quote:
|
So the question is, does treating the quantum realm as if it were a black box imply that the quantum realm really is a black box? Empirically, the answer doesn't matter. Technologically, the answer doesn't matter. But philosophically, the answer is very important.
|
Quantum mechanics is no more treated as a black box than is gravity in either Newtonian theory or general relativity. Science has never tried to explain WHY things work the way they do, only to provide an explanation with predictive power as to HOW they work.
Quote:
Indeed, what does it really mean to say that the quantum realm is a black box and that nothing more can be said? For one thing, such a position is self-defeating and fundamentally mysterian and therefore anathema to the proper spirit of scientific enquiry.
For another, it implies that the quantum realm is unlike anything else in experience: it implies that the quantum realm is naturally indeterministic and apparently partless. Indeterminism and partlessness maybe mathematically simple to model, but they are ontologically huge bells and whistles--it's not at all clear to me at least such an explanation is the more parsimonious.
|
Nearly every scientist would be beside themselves with glee if a deterministic theory could be devised to replace quantum mechanics. Unfortunately the best available experimental data suggests that it is impossible to construct such a model. This has nothing to do with parsimony. It has everything to do with accuracy.
The quantum real does indeed seem to be "unlike anything else in experience". Nobody particularly likes it. But that is what the data says.
"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law
No one has said that nothing more can be said about quantum theory, or any other physical theory. That is why there continues to be research in physics.
I am sure that the models are not clear to you. You seem to specialize in the unclear in your approach to philosopohy. Scientists have the opposite charter -- to be quantitatively accurate and as clear as possible.
Quote:
|
The Bohmian approach multiplies entities, to be sure, but these at least are not ontologically distinct from ordinary tables and chairs. The "hidden variables" are reassuringly deterministic and imply that there are parts at work, even though the parts are beyond our ability to resolve.
|
If and when hidden variables can be shown to provide any additional insight in the form of new and verifiable predictions or even simplifications of existing models I am sure that they will be accepted. However, I believe that it has been shown that hidden variables will not do the job -- I would love for someone to prove this statement wrong by producing a superior predictive model for quantum behavior.