Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Of course you disagree. That is completely predictable, and therefore demonstrably not dependent on quantum mechanics.
|
Sure about that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
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 physicist as being satisfied with black box approaches is quite far off the mark.
|
Actually, I agree. The Bohmian approach is only one sign of dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen, "black box" theory. Michio Kaku himself said on the radio the other night that the philosophically abhorrent "Many-Worlds" interpretation is fast becoming the consensus among physicists these days. Of course, I don't buy into
that idea; but it does point to systemic dissatisfaction with mere bookkeeping.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
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.
|
The hope for a truly quantitative model of evolutionary biology is as forlorn as the hope for a truly quantitative model of the helium atom.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
What is the "Heisenberg limited regime" ? And what in the hell does that have to do with "modern neurological techniques ?
|
The Heisenberg limited regime is that physical regime where our perception is fundamentally limited by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The disanalogy with neurology is that the human seat of consciousness has become more open because of modern neurology techniques.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Quantum mechanics is no more treated as a black box than is gravity in either Newtonian theory or general relativity.
|
You have a point here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
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.
|
But here you falsely generalize an idiosyncrasy of physics to the rest of science.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Now you are overreaching. Bohmian theories are empirically equivalent. The real question is whether the Copenhagen interpretation is in fact more parsimonious; my point is that it is not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
The quantum real does indeed seem to be "unlike anything else in experience". Nobody particularly likes it. But that is what the data says.
|
Not a very reassuring view, I'm sure you'll agree.
Quote:
|
"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
|
HAHA! Great quote sir! But it only reinforces my point that there is no
understanding a black box. It might be possible to predict the behavior of a black box; but the black box as such cannot be understood.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
I am sure that the models are not clear to you.
|
Yes, the kettle is black.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrRocket
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.
|
That statement cannot at this time be proved wrong; on the other hand, it has not been proved correct either--not by a long shot. If it were, the Many Worlds view would never get traction.