• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

More on the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Mechanics

September 6, 2010 by Wes Alwan 8 Comments

Via Conor Friedersdorf blogging for Andrew Sullivan, here's a short Bloggingheads TV discussion on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics:

See the whole episode here and more here.

"100 years ago physics began encountering things a little bit on the intelligible side."  And: "at a quantum level sometimes reality in a certain sense doesn't take firm shape until its measured." If you're wondering what that means, see our more in-depth discussion with physicist Dylan Casey, here.

Frank Wilczek's rejection of the role of consciousness as "fringe" doesn't seem entirely on point to me (I'm not entirely clear if he's trying to characterize the Copenhagen interpretation, so I'm not sure). The point of the Copenhagen interpretation is not that reality at its most fundamental level is altered by consciousness. It's that at the quantum level the notions of position and velocity are intelligible only in the context of of measurement and the contribution of consciousness a the phenomenal level. This is to say they are something like Kantian phenomena, or Lockean secondary qualities ("red" as opposed to the primary quality of wavelength). We are cut off from the underlying real state of things, a level at which the paradox would, presumably, vanish. The Copenhagen interpretation  may not be right, but I think I'm giving the correct account of the position here. See 1:08:30 of the podcast for more on this, including a direct quote from Heisenberg.

By: Wes Alwan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Web Detritus Tagged With: metaphysics of quantum physics, philosophy of physics, philosophy of science, philosophy podcast, quantum mechanics

Comments

  1. burl says

    September 7, 2010 at 5:32 am

    I followed your second link to Sean Carroll saying *about 9 min +) that we change the overall wave state with an observation, and people should not get so wound up about this. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13487

    In one of his 12 hours of QM lectures online, Leo Suskind shares the same attitude, showing how the energy of the measurement ‘camera’ needed to accurately specify, say, the location of a photon, closely approaches the same wavelength magnitude as that of the particle itself, and cannot help but interfere with the photon’s behavior. A less accurate probe will affect the proton less, but will provide a less certain location.

    We see this in everyday science. Take bridge design/analysis, for instance. You can use structural theory to design and build a bridge to safely support an 18 wheeler that weighs twice the legally permissible weight of such a rig. This means the structure has an inherent factor of safety against collapse of 2. You can only 100% verify the accuracy of your theory ONCE – by putting an actual double-legal-weight 18 wheeler on the existing bridge. You are more likely gonna test with a lesser weight overload (say 1.5 times the legal 18 wheeler weight), observe the tendency towards failure, and make a probabilistic prediction based on theoretical modeling, that within a confidence level of X, the bridge is safe. This is called bridge rating thru Non Destructive load Testing.

    Quantum measurements are a form of NDT. Note that by putting a load that approaches the failure load, we will not cause a failure, but we have taken away a hard-to-determine amount of useful bridge life by so over stressing (= more carefully observing) the ‘bridge particle’

    Reply
  2. burl says

    September 7, 2010 at 6:26 am

    I followed your second link to Sean Carroll saying (~9 min in) that we change the overall wave state with an observation, and people should not get so wound up about this. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/13487

    In one of his 12 hours of QM lectures online, Leo Suskind shares the same attitude, showing how the energy of the measurement ‘camera’ needed to accurately specify, say, the location of a photon, closely approaches the same wavelength or amplitude as that of the particle itself, and cannot help but interfere with the photon’s behavior. A less accurate probe (less wavelength or amplitude) will affect the proton less, but will provide a less certain location.

    We see this in everyday science. Take bridge design/analysis, for instance. You can use structural theory to design and build a bridge to safely support an 18 wheeler that weighs twice the legally permissible weight of such a rig. This means the structure has an inherent factor of safety against collapse of 2. You can only 100% verify the accuracy of your theory ONCE – by putting an actual double-legal-weight 18 wheeler on the existing bridge. You are more likely gonna test with a lesser weight overload (say 1.5 times the legal 18 wheeler weight), observe the tendency towards failure, and make a probabilistic prediction based on theoretical modeling, that within a confidence level of X, the bridge is safe for a truck 2 times the legal load. This is called bridge rating thru Non Destructive load Testing.

    Quantum measurements are a form of NDT.

    Reply
  3. burl says

    September 7, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Thought I was editing for clarity, sorry for double post.

    Reply
  4. burl says

    September 7, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    “Quantum measurements are a form of NDT.”

    I forgot the important point: quantum measurement to gain certainty – like location or momentum – is a one-off event of Destructive Testing which, like for the bridge, causes a collapse of sorts (the wave function).

    This is how I understand it, and am open to being totally discredited!

    Reply
  5. Wes Alwan says

    September 7, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Hi Burl, it’s not simply a matter of an instrument interfering with what’s being observed (if it were, there would be nothing mysterious about quantum mechanics). While Heisenberg shows that in fact you can derive the same formulas from experiments which have such interference–entirely from the effects of that interference–as those without, there are in fact experimental results which cannot be attributed to such interference. So while it’s true, for instance, that in the dual slit experiment that a narrowing of the slit to pinpoint position while increase wave diffraction and so make more uncertain the velocity, one can’t in any intuitive way explain the fact that the behavior of a single photon going through one slit depends on whether the other is open (interference seemingly without anything interfering).

    RE, Bridges: it sounds like you and I do something similar for a living.

    Reply
  6. burl says

    September 7, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Doctoral thesis on inelastic analysis of steel bridges.

    Reply
  7. Wes Alwan says

    September 7, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    I’m a technical writer focusing on engineering related to transportation infrastructure — I read a lot of reports probably very much like your thesis.

    Reply
  8. burl says

    September 7, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    What is today’s projected cost to bring the national infrastructure up to standard? I am wondering how this compares with Obama’s current push for another $50B (in addition to the $150B of the $800B stimulus outlay).

    AFAIR, 20 years ago, FHWA reported that 40% of the nation’s bridges were structurally deficient, and I am pretty sure we haven’t done a thing to improve this.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to burl Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Jason Engelund on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part Three for Supporters)
  • Albi Bilali on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Jason Engelund on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Eric on Ep. 318: Friedrich Schiller on the Civilizing Potential of Art (Part One)
  • Vincent Czyz on Lucifer: How a Decent Deity Got a Bad Rap (Part 1)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in