I'm rather distracted at the moment with putting together something about the influence of 20th century physics (relativity, quantum theory, and chaos theory) on the social sciences, so either there'll be no bloggage this weekend, or I'll be blogging too much in an effort to escape the pain (and yes, seeing how sociologists in particular abuse these theories to push postmodern quackery is rather painful).
If things aren't back to normal by Monday, it will be because I've knocked myself out beating my head against the desk.
4 comments:
Good luck with that I/S. May I recommend my own small tilt in that direction, The Quantum Aristotle. :-)
Posted by Peter Cresswell : 6/11/2005 01:50:00 PM
I'd more been focusing on the postmodern tendency's view that relativity and quantum mechanics overthrow the (scientific determinist, reductionist, observer-independent) "Newtonian paradigm" (they don't), and the nasty habit of some sociologists of borrowing theories (e.g. chaos theory) without any empirical justification whatsoever. OTOH, there actually seem to be people in the social sciences who do know what they're talking about when it comes to chaos, and who are using it productively.
As for quantum physics, the Copenhagen school turned to instrumentalism and Berkleyian idealism in an effort to resolve the paradox of how an indeterminate physics could give rise to determinate results. There are other answers - MWI is one of them - but they're equally strange. But does it really matter what metaphysical interpretation scientists put on things, provided their theories work?
I'd also point out that your swipe at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is unjustified. You may not like it, but the brute fact is we can't know. And it's not a function of inadequate instrumentation, but a basic physical limit. Worse, the "ignorance interpretation" - that the properties exist, but are simply hidden - is increasingly unsustainable. Einstein's formulation of the Uncertainty principle in terms of energy and time doesn't just give us a nifty theory of virtual particles, it also provides an explanation of quantum tunneling and of why Helium stays liquid even at ridiculously close to absolute zero, as well as making testable predictions about energy leakage from singularities. A better way of thinking about it is that it is just the basic limits of the wavelike properties of matter.
I also agree with Brian that quantum computing shows that Aristotelian logic isn't the be-all and end-all of logical systems. But logicians knew that anyway.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 6/12/2005 01:16:00 AM
Hey Idiot/Savant (you wo(man/men) of mystery, you), if you're into a bit of sadism after what sounds like an already excruciating foray, you should go see that "What the Bleep" movie at Rialto.
It's a bunch of whacks and hacks (some of whom were employed as physicists or mathematicians by real universities) apparently pushing a theory that quantum physics means that things aren't "real" until they are observed, and that since there is no causation prior to quantum "determination", it must *obviously* be the observation that determines it. Thus, we can will reality, if we really really try.
Uh... basically, Schrödinger's Cat will be alive if Schrödinger really *wanted* it to be alive. Like if he really loved it, and stuff.
The movie made me want to cry. I did, however, give their idea serious consideration, and really try to will my reality into existance.
However, the screen, film, subjects and directors did not spontaneously combust.
Posted by Anonymous : 6/13/2005 09:06:00 PM
Keith: Well, it was fairly orthodox until the willing reality bit. Not that the physics says that, but the metaphysical interpretation put on it by early quantum physicists (like Bohr) does.
And OTOH, it's not very different from the extreme empiricism of C18th philosophers like Berkeley. If you believe that observation must be the basis of all knowledge, then the best you can say is that there is sense data. And if all there is is sense-data, then you can't really say that the world is there when you're not looking. This is possibly an example of taking an argument too far, but it doesn't matter anyway, and if people want to believe their beer isn't there when they're not looking, you can always take the opportunity to steal it.
BTW "blob of mystery" sounds better. And its suitably gelatinous.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 6/13/2005 11:33:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).