This deep dive into Quine, a priori , posteriori, empiricism , subjectivity etc was exceptional. Smooth flowing convo with, for me anyway, many new insights, and novel ways of thinking about these topics and to blissfully ruminate upon. Robinson and Senior Geeseling (pod🐈) thank you so much !
My first time being exposed to Prof Bo, thanks Rob for this awesome meeting. I love the people you introduce us to. Prof Bo is so straight forward , logical, and clear in his explanations. Thank you I hope to see more soon, maybe Prof B and From Tim Maud, and Dr. Dave Alb on a triple guest show ??? That would be so insane
Huge fan of Paul’s book “Fear of Knowledge” and highly recommend it to everyone out there. It can get a bit technical, but it’s worth the effort to get through, and overall it’s a quick read at about 130 pages. A great counterpoint to those that bandy about relativist arguments or postmodernist nonsense. I know that latter term can be criticized for being vague or including an eclectic mix of philosophers and ideologies, but when I use the term here I mean something like “those that believe something along the lines of ‘truth’ not existing and/or those that have a strong distaste for scientific/mathematical/logical methodologies”. Great work Robinson. Keep it up!
This is funny. I just read about this on the Stanford Encyclopedia Page on metaepistomology a couple days ago. Now(after the podcast and your comment) i will definitly add it to my reading list!
I went to school for physics and never quite understood why philosophy of science was not more central in what i was taught.... Now i find philosophy much more intriguing because it actually applies to my everyday life! Thanks for sharing this, it was quite interesting!
Oh wow, One of my favorites as well. I’m about to watch this episode, i hope you asked him about the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that seem to imply some sort of extreme social constructuvism. I was planning on writing to him soon to see if he has written about it
I feel like the example of spitting on the ground is about being rude rather than evil. A person spitting, chewing with their mouth full, or wearing Tudor style clothing on a workplace seem to receive a different kind of opprobrium than a person who murdered someone, threw their infant child into a trash can, or tortured cats for fun. They seem to be very different kinds of emotions, even if both are emotions of disapproval and “wrongness” in a very broad sense.
40:00 The main misconception in the interpretations of quantum mechanics is that the equally probable nature of phenomena implies their equivalence.* Moreover, not only at 50/50, but also at 99/1. However, equality and equivalence are completely different things, even if they are causally related; for example, all inertial reference systems are equal in SR and QM, but far from equivalent. Obviously, if a dead or a living cat, the spin of entangled photons up or down, pairs of socks or letters marked + or - in different parts of the world are equal, then they are not physically equivalent; and also, branched universes. When an tails falls out after a coin toss, then they talk about the collapse of the wave function, when tails and heads are just equal, but not the same even not only for numismatists.That is, these are physical parameters of different physical phenomena, and their representation by a single wave function according to Born is ridiculous. For example, when energy E=mc^2, then mass m=E/c^2, since they are parameters of the same physical entity, and therefore equivalent. For comparison: in GR, in a gravitational field or in an equally accelerated frame of reference, all events are not only equal, but equivalent*, so Einstein criticized QM for not being as radical as RT.** --------------------- *) - In logic, this is the basic law: the law of identity. **) - The equivalent Universe can only be the accelerating Universe itself. ***) - It seems that the uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of probability/equivalence. In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate that there are no exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters.
59:45 Unrecoverable measurement. It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger/Carroll cat). A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion).It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. * Of course, Carroll's sleeping cat breathes, but differently (can be measured) than the waking one.** Sweet dreams to you QM, on the interpretation of the Born wave function. P.S. Why didn't Einstein use this argumet? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters… --------------------- *) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (which makes measurement possible). It is clear that this will also cause additional radiation of gravitational waves, since the included detector is already a source. **) - The formula can be given in the following form for a photon: I(G)={[w/w(pl)]^2}ħw^2. Of course, this approach is also applicable to the case of entangled particles. "When physicists offer metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena, I start swearing." (Raymond Tallis). Frame of reference in GR: "In the general case of an arbitrary variable gravitational field, the metric of space is not only non-euclidean but also changed with time. This means that the relationships between different geometric distances change over time. As a result, the relative position of the "test particles" introduced into the field in any coordinate system can not remain unchanged." ( Landau-Lifshitz, II). It turns out that since the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe speak, hear and listen to each other in the language of gravity (= irreducible spontaneous measurement).
In the Sokal hoax, did the publishers know who the essay was written by before accepting it? If so, then it’s hard to see how that points to anything more than the journal’s willingness to publish by name alone. Which is an interesting discovery, but not particularly damning for postmodern critiques of science.
One can see the battle between modus ponens and modus tollens in Robinson's eyes when he is told that his proposal commits him to the view, that if he were raised in culture that considers slavery to be normal, for that imaginary Brobinson, there would be nothing morally wrong about slavery. Counterfactual feelings are hard to project. Once Robinson bites the bullet, Boghossian gets visibly rigidified, and promises that "it can be shown that such theory would be wrong".
It’s telling that Sokal didn’t perform the same experiment with a physics journal. There might have been some merit to his ostensible thesis had he been turned down in his own field. We’ll never know, of course, because his boldness only extended to low-hanging fruit and speaking over the heads of folks who don’t speak his language. He took advantage of his position and his relationship with the editors and ultimately proved only that he could and would act in bad faith. Slow clap. The facts of nepotism and all manner of corrupt standards in even hard science journals is undeniable and this was the case in that moment as well. I find it timely given the current situation at Stanford and Harvard, both “hard-science” authority figures well and truly steeped in bad-faith publishing practices. I’ll go slightly further and simply suggest that an under-discussed factor in the antipathy from the physicists towards the philosophers boils down to the unsubstantiated foundational positivist dogma inherent to the former’s worldview as described by the latter. Neil DeGrass Tyson sums it up sweetly: they believe philosophy is obsolete. Yet, they can’t explain to you why. (They’d need a philosopher for that) Hilarious.
@@afdulmitdemklappstuhl9607Well… if obsoleteness is taken descriptively without an implied value judgment, would it be philosophy to say philosophy is obsolete? Or would it just be sociology of inquiry or something?
@@mynameisjefferson3771 if you mean with descriptivly obsolete something like nobody studies philosophy, nobodody reads philosophical journals, philosophy has no impact on society etc. then i would say your right.
What's wrong with feelings? They are highly evolved biological phenomena with objective status across subjectivities. I wonder what Paul's stance would be factoring in evolutionary science and pragmatist views.
Since undertaking believed means to obtain something is - instrumentally - rational in economics, which doesn't rule out emotion * unlike reason does, would adjective "irrational" connote 'a row' and moreover, doesn't Hawking's definition of space-time in The Large Scale Structure of the Universe, as a Hausdorff paracompact Topological Space ** , which is a set of elements called open sets, equipped with a topology of declared bona fide set and empvy set inclusive subsets whose either complement, intersection, or union results in another topology subset, imply the rejection of Russell's set theory critique : the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves, is a set that is not an element of itself and is not, a set that is not an element of itself ^ , maybe on the grounds that respective zero and infinity synonyms the empty set and "set of all sets", behave like substitutes when multiplied by a finite number, but complements under addition ° ? * If the opposite of number syntax representative numeral > , is < and 'squaring' ^^ < gives
All this talking all that talking and I didn't get one thing out of the podcast not even one little thing except it's sunny out and don't hit your cat it makes no sense I mean you didn't even come to one concrete point just a lot of speech and not a lot of results
This deep dive into Quine, a priori , posteriori, empiricism , subjectivity etc was exceptional. Smooth flowing convo with, for me anyway, many new insights, and novel ways of thinking about these topics and to blissfully ruminate upon. Robinson and Senior Geeseling (pod🐈) thank you so much !
you're the best bernardo!
My first time being exposed to Prof Bo, thanks Rob for this awesome meeting. I love the people you introduce us to. Prof Bo is so straight forward , logical, and clear in his explanations. Thank you I hope to see more soon, maybe Prof B and From Tim Maud, and Dr. Dave Alb on a triple guest show ??? That would be so insane
All sorts of monstrosities in the works!
Paul Horwich ( Prof Ho?) was very clear and logical as well.
Huge fan of Paul’s book “Fear of Knowledge” and highly recommend it to everyone out there. It can get a bit technical, but it’s worth the effort to get through, and overall it’s a quick read at about 130 pages. A great counterpoint to those that bandy about relativist arguments or postmodernist nonsense. I know that latter term can be criticized for being vague or including an eclectic mix of philosophers and ideologies, but when I use the term here I mean something like “those that believe something along the lines of ‘truth’ not existing and/or those that have a strong distaste for scientific/mathematical/logical methodologies”. Great work Robinson. Keep it up!
Be explicit. Precisely whom do you mean to indict with your charges of relativism?
This is funny. I just read about this on the Stanford Encyclopedia Page on metaepistomology a couple days ago. Now(after the podcast and your comment) i will definitly add it to my reading list!
Thank you!!
I went to school for physics and never quite understood why philosophy of science was not more central in what i was taught....
Now i find philosophy much more intriguing because it actually applies to my everyday life!
Thanks for sharing this, it was quite interesting!
I'm glad you liked it!!!
Fascinating stuff. I would definitely read more into this topic. Thank you for creating great content.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks!!!
Great ep. I think the Twitch channel you advertise in the outro has been cancelled, however!
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed :) And yes, the Twitch channel is no more.
@@robinsonerhardt Aw, that's a shame. I can appreciate it will have been for a good reason though.
Oh wow,
One of my favorites as well. I’m about to watch this episode, i hope you asked him about the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that seem to imply some sort of extreme social constructuvism. I was planning on writing to him soon to see if he has written about it
I hope you enjoy!!
I feel like the example of spitting on the ground is about being rude rather than evil. A person spitting, chewing with their mouth full, or wearing Tudor style clothing on a workplace seem to receive a different kind of opprobrium than a person who murdered someone, threw their infant child into a trash can, or tortured cats for fun. They seem to be very different kinds of emotions, even if both are emotions of disapproval and “wrongness” in a very broad sense.
40:00 The main misconception in the interpretations of quantum mechanics is that the equally probable nature of phenomena implies their equivalence.* Moreover, not only at 50/50, but also at 99/1. However, equality and equivalence are completely different things, even if they are causally related; for example, all inertial reference systems are equal in SR and QM, but far from equivalent. Obviously, if a dead or a living cat, the spin of entangled photons up or down, pairs of socks or letters marked + or - in different parts of the world are equal, then they are not physically equivalent; and also, branched universes. When an tails falls out after a coin toss, then they talk about the collapse of the wave function, when tails and heads are just equal, but not the same even not only for numismatists.That is, these are physical parameters of different physical phenomena, and their representation by a single wave function according to Born is ridiculous.
For example, when energy E=mc^2, then mass m=E/c^2, since they are parameters of the same physical entity, and therefore equivalent.
For comparison: in GR, in a gravitational field or in an equally accelerated frame of reference, all events are not only equal, but equivalent*, so Einstein criticized QM for not being as radical as RT.**
---------------------
*) - In logic, this is the basic law: the law of identity.
**) - The equivalent Universe can only be the accelerating Universe itself.
***) - It seems that the uncertainty principle is the result of a misunderstanding of probability/equivalence.
In the Heisenberg inequalities, the mathematical apparatus was formed before the interpretation of their physical essence. It is funny that these inequalities indicate that there are no exact values of coordinates and momentum vector in the states of microobjects at the same time; and thus exclude the equivalence of these parameters.
Share twitch link please, can't find you on twitch.
59:45 Unrecoverable measurement.
It seems that there have never been any problems with QM already within the framework of GR (for example, in the case of the Schrodinger/Carroll cat).
A live cat breathes and, accordingly, emits gravitational waves according to the formula GR with intensity: I(G)=(2G/45c^5)(M^2)(l^4)(w^6), where M is the mass of the cat, l is its characteristic size, w is its frequency breathing.The frequency of gravitational radiation should be on the order of w~ 2π/т where т is the characteristic time of accelerated mass movement (pulsation, rotation, collision, non-spherical explosion).It is clear that the dead cat is not breathing and I(G) =0. In principle, all this lends itself to a certain (improbability) constant measurement without opening the "black box", since gravity is not shielded [w=w(m)]. Moreover, the behavior of the radiation source is also controlled, since it emits only in an excited state. *
Of course, Carroll's sleeping cat breathes, but differently (can be measured) than the waking one.**
Sweet dreams to you QM, on the interpretation of the Born wave function.
P.S. Why didn't Einstein use this argumet? He wasn't sure about the reality of gravitational waves and assumed only the presence of hidden parameters…
---------------------
*) - If the cat is replaced with a detector, then with each absorption its state will change (which makes measurement possible). It is clear that this will also cause additional radiation of gravitational waves, since the included detector is already a source.
**) - The formula can be given in the following form for a photon: I(G)={[w/w(pl)]^2}ħw^2.
Of course, this approach is also applicable to the case of entangled particles.
"When physicists offer metaphysical explanations for physical phenomena, I start swearing." (Raymond Tallis).
Frame of reference in GR: "In the general case of an arbitrary variable gravitational field, the metric of space is not only non-euclidean but also changed with time. This means that the relationships between different geometric distances change over time. As a result, the relative position of the "test particles" introduced into the field in any coordinate system can not remain unchanged." ( Landau-Lifshitz, II).
It turns out that since the Big Bang, all the particles in the universe speak, hear and listen to each other in the language of gravity (= irreducible spontaneous measurement).
In the Sokal hoax, did the publishers know who the essay was written by before accepting it? If so, then it’s hard to see how that points to anything more than the journal’s willingness to publish by name alone. Which is an interesting discovery, but not particularly damning for postmodern critiques of science.
One can see the battle between modus ponens and modus tollens in Robinson's eyes when he is told that his proposal commits him to the view, that if he were raised in culture that considers slavery to be normal, for that imaginary Brobinson, there would be nothing morally wrong about slavery. Counterfactual feelings are hard to project. Once Robinson bites the bullet, Boghossian gets visibly rigidified, and promises that "it can be shown that such theory would be wrong".
Are you for hire to do running commentary on all episodes?
@@robinsonerhardt What are you paying?
Subtle distinctions, that's my problem. Who's subtle distinctions are we following?
It’s telling that Sokal didn’t perform the same experiment with a physics journal. There might have been some merit to his ostensible thesis had he been turned down in his own field. We’ll never know, of course, because his boldness only extended to low-hanging fruit and speaking over the heads of folks who don’t speak his language. He took advantage of his position and his relationship with the editors and ultimately proved only that he could and would act in bad faith. Slow clap.
The facts of nepotism and all manner of corrupt standards in even hard science journals is undeniable and this was the case in that moment as well. I find it timely given the current situation at Stanford and Harvard, both “hard-science” authority figures well and truly steeped in bad-faith publishing practices.
I’ll go slightly further and simply suggest that an under-discussed factor in the antipathy from the physicists towards the philosophers boils down to the unsubstantiated foundational positivist dogma inherent to the former’s worldview as described by the latter. Neil DeGrass Tyson sums it up sweetly: they believe philosophy is obsolete.
Yet, they can’t explain to you why. (They’d need a philosopher for that)
Hilarious.
Yeah its tough to hate philosophy because you cant explain why its obsolete without doing it.
@@afdulmitdemklappstuhl9607Well… if obsoleteness is taken descriptively without an implied value judgment, would it be philosophy to say philosophy is obsolete? Or would it just be sociology of inquiry or something?
@@mynameisjefferson3771 if you mean with descriptivly obsolete something like nobody studies philosophy, nobodody reads philosophical journals, philosophy has no impact on society etc. then i would say your right.
Why no discussion of the moral of the Sokal hoax? What it says about the quality of postmodern journals etc….
What's wrong with feelings? They are highly evolved biological phenomena with objective status across subjectivities. I wonder what Paul's stance would be factoring in evolutionary science and pragmatist views.
Since undertaking believed means to obtain something is - instrumentally - rational in economics, which doesn't rule out emotion * unlike reason does, would adjective "irrational" connote 'a row' and moreover, doesn't Hawking's definition of space-time in The Large Scale Structure of the Universe, as a Hausdorff paracompact Topological Space ** , which is a set of elements called open sets, equipped with a topology of declared bona fide set and empvy set inclusive subsets whose either complement, intersection, or union results in another topology subset, imply the rejection of Russell's set theory critique : the set of all sets that are not elements of themselves, is a set that is not an element of itself and is not, a set that is not an element of itself ^ , maybe on the grounds that respective zero and infinity synonyms the empty set and "set of all sets", behave like substitutes when multiplied by a finite number, but complements under addition ° ?
* If the opposite of number syntax representative numeral > , is < and 'squaring' ^^ < gives
👍
!!!
All this talking all that talking and I didn't get one thing out of the podcast not even one little thing except it's sunny out and don't hit your cat it makes no sense I mean you didn't even come to one concrete point just a lot of speech and not a lot of results