Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
The differences between ontology and epistemology are crucial to the way we interpret mathematics and logic. Very often statements are made which suggest that these concepts have not been properly understood by even sometimes the most "educated" people discussing the foundations of physics.
I believe it will be found that a lack of proper grounding in philosophy would be one of the main reasons why 20th-century physics failed. "Bell's theorem" would be another one (not entirely unrelated to the former). The 21st century is still young but at the current pace, it may have a similar fate of stagnation and regression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I believe it will be found that a lack of proper grounding in philosophy would be one of the main reasons why 20th-century physics failed. "Bell's theorem" would be another one (not entirely unrelated to the former). The 21st century is still young but at the current pace, it may have a similar fate of stagnation and regression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
-
- Mathematical Statistician
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:17 pm
- Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Nice talk by Feynman! It was about the difference between mathematics and physics. We need both. We need epistemology and we need ontology.minkwe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:26 pm The differences between ontology and epistemology are crucial to the way we interpret mathematics and logic. Very often statements are made which suggest that these concepts have not been properly understood by even sometimes the most "educated" people discussing the foundations of physics.
I believe it will be found that a lack of proper grounding in philosophy would be one of the main reasons why 20th-century physics failed. "Bell's theorem" would be another one (not entirely unrelated to the former). The 21st century is still young but at the current pace, it may have a similar fate of stagnation and regression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
Feynman agreed with Bell. He heard about Bell’s theorem and came up immediately with his own alternative proof. He preferred to figure things out for himself.
Bell had an excellent grounding both in philosophy and in physics and in mathematics. His work is all about the differences between epistemology and ontology. His work on the foundations of quantum mechanics is high level philosophy. His work at CERN was high level particle physics.
There is a hard mathematical core to Bell’s work. You can express it as a formal sequence of axioms, proposition, lemma, theorem. The application to physics is still a matter of debate. Debate about ontology. It is metaphysics. Philosophy of physics.
You can also apply that mathematical core to certain problems in distributed computing (computer science, classical, not quantum). I think that that application is not controversial at all.
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Feynman in 1983 talking about the Bell theorem said: "...It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance. We who use quantum mechanics have been using it all the time. It is not an important theorem. It is simply a statement of something we know is true—a mathematical proof of it.”
-
- Research Physicist
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:26 pm
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Feynman also noted that it can be proved only by assuming incompatible experiments that cannot be physically realized simultaneously.Justo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:45 am Feynman in 1983 talking about the Bell theorem said: "...It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance. We who use quantum mechanics have been using it all the time. It is not an important theorem. It is simply a statement of something we know is true—a mathematical proof of it.”
In other words, physically, the "theorem" of Bell is complete nonsense.
In my view, the so-called "theorem" is a joke.
.
-
- Mathematical Statistician
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:17 pm
- Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Indeed! Everybody who understood quantum mechanics had already ditched local realism. It’s an elementary mathematical proof of something you would expect to be true, anyway. Feynman immediately came up with his own.Justo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:45 am Feynman in 1983 talking about the Bell theorem said: "...It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance. We who use quantum mechanics have been using it all the time. It is not an important theorem. It is simply a statement of something we know is true—a mathematical proof of it.”
Joy, you say
Please give us the exact Feynman quote. I think you are completely wrong. And I think Feynman was too smart to think what you say he said.Feynman also noted that it can be proved only by assuming incompatible experiments that cannot be physically realized simultaneously
Is the theorem a joke? It certainly is close to a joke. So simple, so obviously true. The joke is that some people still so desperately want it to be untrue.
-
- Research Physicist
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:26 pm
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Not everybody. Not smart people like Einstein who knew better. Only dumb people ditched local realism.gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:18 amIndeed! Everybody who understood quantum mechanics had already ditched local realism. It’s an elementary mathematical proof of something you would expect to be true, anyway. Feynman immediately came up with his own.Justo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:45 am Feynman in 1983 talking about the Bell theorem said: "...It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance. We who use quantum mechanics have been using it all the time. It is not an important theorem. It is simply a statement of something we know is true—a mathematical proof of it.”
Watch the video where Feynman explains Bell's theorem. Find it yourself on YouTube. I am not going to be bothered looking for it.gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:18 am Joy, you sayPlease give us the exact Feynman quote. I think you are completely wrong. And I think Feynman was too smart to think what you say he said.Feynman also noted that it can be proved only by assuming incompatible experiments that cannot be physically realized simultaneously
.
-
- Mathematical Statistician
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:17 pm
- Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
I’ve watched the video. Feynman agrees entirely with Bell’s theorem. He says everybody already knew it was true. It didn’t change anything. Bell just write out a formal proof. Feynman agrees that Bell’s proof is correct and agrees that Bell’s theorem is correct.Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:28 amNot everybody. Not smart people like Einstein who knew better. Only dumb people ditched local realism.gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:18 amIndeed! Everybody who understood quantum mechanics had already ditched local realism. It’s an elementary mathematical proof of something you would expect to be true, anyway. Feynman immediately came up with his own.Justo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 4:45 am Feynman in 1983 talking about the Bell theorem said: "...It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance. We who use quantum mechanics have been using it all the time. It is not an important theorem. It is simply a statement of something we know is true—a mathematical proof of it.”
Watch the video where Feynman explains Bell's theorem. Find it yourself on YouTube. I am not going to be bothered looking for it.gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:18 am Joy, you sayPlease give us the exact Feynman quote. I think you are completely wrong. And I think Feynman was too smart to think what you say he said.Feynman also noted that it can be proved only by assuming incompatible experiments that cannot be physically realized simultaneously
.
Feynman explicitly ditches local realism. He is absolutely explicit that if you don’t measure something, the value which it would have if you had measured it, simply isn’t there. Can’t be there. You only get into trouble by imagining that it does.
Feynman nowhere says what you say he says. (I’m sure he was far too smart to say something like that!) You picked up some words somewhere about incompatible experiments, and put your own meaning on them.
Here’s a nice reference to Feynman’s views on Bell’s theorem and link to the relevant YouTube video.
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.4948268
-
- Research Physicist
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:26 pm
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
.
Feynman on Bell's theorem: "It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance."
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4948268
.
Feynman on Bell's theorem: "It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance."
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4948268
.
-
- Mathematical Statistician
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:17 pm
- Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Yes, because (Feynman says) everybody already knew it was true! Nobody (at least, nobody smart) had any need of it! Bell just wrote out the math properly.Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 6:30 am .
Feynman on Bell's theorem: "It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance."
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4948268
.
What did everyone already know? Not the CHSH inequality, obviously. What everyone who knew anything about QM already knew was that local realism had to be abandoned.
Watch the video!
-
- Research Physicist
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:26 pm
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Only really dumb people thought that "local realism had to be abandoned." Smart people like Einstein knew better.gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 6:34 amYes, because (Feynman says) everybody already knew it was true! Nobody (at least, nobody smart) had any need of it! Bell just wrote out the math properly.Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 6:30 am .
Feynman on Bell's theorem: "It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance."
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4948268
.
What did everyone already know? Not the CHSH inequality, obviously. What everyone who knew anything about QM already knew was that local realism had to be abandoned.
Watch the video!
.
-
- Mathematical Statistician
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:17 pm
- Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Einstein didn’t give up on local realism. But he didn’t get anywhere.
Superdeterminism is popular. Retrocausality is popular. Non-locality has few supporters, but very good arguments. A lot of people go for “shut up and calculate”. Feynman argued for that. He didn’t mean that one should do it in a mindless way. He argued that that was the only option, and Bell’s theorem was a supporting argument.
Superdeterminism is popular. Retrocausality is popular. Non-locality has few supporters, but very good arguments. A lot of people go for “shut up and calculate”. Feynman argued for that. He didn’t mean that one should do it in a mindless way. He argued that that was the only option, and Bell’s theorem was a supporting argument.
-
- Independent Physics Researcher
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:44 pm
- Location: N. California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Unbelievable that even Feynman got hoodwinked by Bell's junk physics theory.gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 7:34 pm Einstein didn’t give up on local realism. But he didn’t get anywhere.
Superdeterminism is popular. Retrocausality is popular. Non-locality has few supporters, but very good arguments. A lot of people go for “shut up and calculate”. Feynman argued for that. He didn’t mean that one should do it in a mindless way. He argued that that was the only option, and Bell’s theorem was a supporting argument.
.
-
- Research Physicist
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:26 pm
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
.
Feynman on Bell's theorem: "It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance."
.
Feynman on Bell's theorem: "It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance."
.
-
- Independent Physics Researcher
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:44 pm
- Location: N. California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Ah... figures that Gill would be stretching the truth as usual.Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:30 am .
Feynman on Bell's theorem: "It is not a theorem that anybody thinks is of any particular importance."
.
-
- Mathematical Statistician
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:17 pm
- Location: Apeldoorn, Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
I am not stretching the truth.
Feynman says it is a theorem of no particular importance, because everyone (who knew about QM) already knew it.
Feynman says it is a theorem of no particular importance, because everyone (who knew about QM) already knew it.
-
- Research Physicist
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:26 pm
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
.
Bell's theorem is just a bad joke.
.
Bell's theorem is just a bad joke.
.
-
- Independent Physics Researcher
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:44 pm
- Location: N. California, USA
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
Yeah, if you say, "Bell's junk physics theory", then the theory is just a joke. But using "theorem" makes it a really really bad joke.
.
-
- Research Physicist
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:26 pm
- Location: Oxford, United Kingdom
- Contact:
Re: Mathematics is epistemology not ontology. Discuss
.
Here is where Feynman makes that claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTbtXgqYMo&t=1500s
From Feynman's actual comments it is very clear that Richard D. Gill is lying again, as he frequently does.
.
Here is where Feynman makes that claim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTbtXgqYMo&t=1500s
From Feynman's actual comments it is very clear that Richard D. Gill is lying again, as he frequently does.
.