RE: Do electrons exist?
April 6, 2019 at 9:08 am
(This post was last modified: April 6, 2019 at 9:19 am by bennyboy.)
(April 6, 2019 at 6:38 am)robvalue Wrote: I used to adopt the position of "methodological naturalism", which is basically saying that we only concern ourselves with things we can reliably detect in some way. Other things don’t make any practical difference to anything, until such time as we find a way to detect them, whether or not they are "supernatural" or "immaterial", whatever those things may mean.
I still think that’s a reasonable proposition.
Let's be clear that I'm not arguing substance dualism-- I'm saying that reality as we know it is probably best viewed in idealistic terms. That's because we have preconceptions about what stuff should be, like the ones I just mentioned-- but no such prejudices about what forms ideas might take.
If you say, for example, that an electron is the expression of a mathematical idea, then you can attach whatever rules you want. You just have to observe things, and say: "Oh. . . we've found that X acts in ways Y and Z."
(April 6, 2019 at 9:05 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Ostensibly, if there were woo - there isn't any particular reason why that woo isn't just as material as the next material thing.
If you take that to be woo..then it's material woo.
The video I linked introduced that as a possible explanation for the quantum eraser effect. I can't claim credit for the idea.
I don't think the quantum eraser effect agrees with you about "any particle" interacting with another particle. The particles of a mirror which splits photon paths, for example, don't seem to interfere with the QEE. It very much seems to be an issue of whether information is preserved or destroyed.
Watch the video. It's a freaking cool experiment, and no discussion of QM can work without talking about QEE
(April 6, 2019 at 9:05 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Ostensibly, if there were woo - there isn't any particular reason why that woo isn't just as material as the next material thing.
Yeah, to me, it's just semantics-- either we have a very squirrely and magical material monism, or we have an idealism in which some things and properties follow rules so tightly bound that we can use them to reliably performs billions of operations a second, or to fly in the air.
In general, though, I'd say letting go of preconceptions is more likely to aid in understanding the newer science than getting entrenched with a too-literal view of the mundane world. It's just easier to think of an electron as a mathematical idea than as a thing with strange properties-- at least to me.
We've gone down this hole before, but let's be clear-- I'm not trying to replace science or open the door to metaphysical woo. I'm just talking about how we should frame the world of computers and airplanes.
