Quantum or Logic?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

hope this is the correct form i have a nasty habit of posting ideas/question? in the wrong form dunno if this is an actual question just and idea to put out there…
quantum theory ideas ive had…

-there is either a flaw in Quantum theory (or our perception? of quantum) or Logic
-Law of non-contradiction is violated (this is while it is not being watched…)
-Quantum was a tool invented to understand particle “movement” and put in into our perspective

  • Logic was a tool invented to tell us if an argument is valid or invalid
    -So one of the two is wrong logic and quantum cannot co-exist…

or our view of quantum or logic is flawed

so far my ideas are going no where stuck with the the whole idea of one or the other …or quantum is wrong all together

and the whole epistemological status on the theory is really hard to explain theres scientific facts that this theory is correct, very solid evidence… but idownt know…

if anyone thats has any ideas to add or things to suggest to me or maybe to shut me down all together! anything would be greatly appreciated !!
thx!!

Phantom

2

Perhaps logic doesn’t exist on the quantum level. Or just not our logic.

3

Ridiculous… theories and concepts are forms of logic.

Quantum theory or others may be falsifiable but not logic itself.

4

We have yet to discover if there is a pattern to Quantum particles.

5

Phantom’s choice of words may be misguided. I understand the two big questions he may be grasping though.

(1) Has quantum mechanics proven the law of determinism falsifiable? Some quantum theorists believe now that the universe may not be entirely deterministic, although the multiverse ultimately is.

(2) Given 1, logic may prove to be insubstantial as a measuring tool because it deals with truths and falsities in a universe that could be nothing other than probabilities.

6

Remember that the standard model of quantum physics is only a set of explanations for subatomic phenomena, not the universe at large. The end-all theory explains things, physical and mental, and will not contradict with logic. Unless the universe is inherently contradictory, which I don’t believe on the grounds that we’ve never had to crash and reboot, so to speak. Which may or may not be attributed to the anthropic principle.

7

Quantam machinics has to do with small things, the universe and multiverse are large scale things, unless science is trying to say that we are all smaller than we preseive our selves and universe to be, then quantam machinics appears to be flawed, or atleast the way we are preseiving it.

8

Could there be one thing and you are “It”? Could “It” also be everything? If “It” is being everything would it not implode and explode eternally, going back to being one thing and then being everything? Would “It” gravitate towards itself just by being “It”? The more “It” the more gravity? Would “It” implode/gravitate until it had had every last piece of “It” and was one thing before instantly becoming everything again?

9

Yeah, some of us (including Einstein) believe that quuantum theory is flawed:

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

10

quantum or logic?

Quantum Mechanics is a description of how fundamental particles interact.

Logic is a tool we use to predict an outcome based on Causality, or in effect our memory of the sum of previous outcomes merged with a constructed postulation.

I would prefer to term this Quantum Mechanics vs. Causality? or as Gaiaguerrilla put it: Quantum Mechanics vs. Determinism?

I can only agree with you Gaiaguerrilla. I have believed solely in determinism, since I understood the concept; however, when you comprehend what Quantum Mechanics is actually decribing, we want to first say random. Then we take the next step to probability. Some of us have even taken the next step, possibility. In the end, in the whole scheme of things, determinism still creeps in the door. Or does it? :wink:

Either way, Logic is still an exceptional tool (if you are of sound mind) as it provides a way to make predictions based on probability.

This brings to mind Polemarchus’ signature: “Deux excès: exclure la raison, n’admettre que la raison.” – Pascal. Quite an interesting thought actually. Have fun with that!

11

Logic is a tool that people mistake as the truth.

Remember the old Zen admonition: Do not confuse a finger pointing at the moon for the moon.

12

very nice very nice

13

…

14

My opinion and verbiage:

There is what I call definitional logic and ideal logic. Definitional logic is what we know. Ideal logic is what we don’t know.

Definitional logic is not unlike that undertanding of physics that got us to the point where that understanding changed (Newton, Einstein, etc.). Ideal logic is is not unlike quantum physics, or any physics, that we will eventually come to know. At one time Newton was all we knew and Einstein was part of the Ideal that we did not yet know. Now we know him and move on, toward the rest of the ideal.

So, definitional logic requires that you cannot have “A” and “Not A” in the same place at the same time. We know that.

What we don’t know is that you actually can have “A” and “Not A” in the same place at the same time. When we know that, then we will understand quantum physics is correct. And not. And we will be comfortable with it.

So, what I am saying in response to your specific question is this: neither quantum physics nor logic are wrong or incompatible. They only appear that way because we have saddled ourselves with flawed definitions of them; i.e. we don’t know everything, and what we do know is far from complete.

There is a reason why they say everytime we learn something new, a thousand new questions arise. As if we had made no headway at all.

All we know is that we know nothing. Or however The Man (Socrates/Plato) said it. So, the next time someone tells you X, you can rest assured it’s merely definitional and not ideal. We keep crawling out of Plato’s cave toward that blinding flash of light. Some call it God and if we were to see it now, we couldn’t handle it. We must crawl or it would blow our mind. We just hate crawling. So to hell with definitions. Blow your mind: “A” = “-A”.

On another thread, some guy was talking about the difference between “knowing” and “understanding.” Well, it is the physisists job to understand and that takes crawling. I may know that “A” = “-A” but I don’t understand it, and for that reason I can’t put it to any practical use. I need physists to understand it and make it work. But if they are going to stick with definitions as they exist now, then I’m going to have a long wait. I need some physists to think outside the box (i.e. definitions) and then come back and tie up the loose ends.

So let’s get with the program people! I want to time travel and all that other good shit before I die. Move! Move! Move!

15

“Deux excès: exclure la raison, n’admettre que la raison.” – Pascal

“Two excesses: exclude reason, admitting only reason.” – Pascal

16

Dumb it down for me. It sounds good, but I’m not sure I get it.

With the colon there, I see the two excesses as being 1. Excluding reason; and, 2. Admitting only reason. If that is the way it is to be read, I think I like it.

17

I take it to mean that, as it pertains to logic, that there are two extremes, excluding the use of logic entirely, and basing everything on logic. The middle path tends to give us the best results.

Realistically, I still tend to lean a little more in the way of logic; however the continuous paradigm shift that you are speaking of requires that we think a little illogical. Einstein had to spend a little time stabbing in the dark, or thinking outside of the box before he came up with his paradigm crushing theory. Basically we couldn’t move forward without some illogical imagination. We are doing the same now with modal realism, multiverses, and M theory. Maybe soon one of the imagined possibilities will become the new paradigm.

It is incredible, the rate at which we are progressing scientifically relative to the last thousand years. We have gained more in 100 years, than in the entire millennia pryor.

18

That sounds somewhat like your second sig line: "“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Where the reasonable man is logical and the unreasonable man is illogical.

Every premise should be periodically attacked, with vigor; especially the fundamental ones.

19

Interesting. I hadn’t made that correlation. Maybe that’s why I liked it so much. I find much safety in the middle path I guess.

20

I think:
All Truth is personal
All proof and facts are historical opinions.
Imagination is a gift.
Question everything - but wash the dishes.