On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:37 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>I have no idea what the difference is between "text-book" realism and >>> "Eisteinian realism" is and I don't think you do either, in physics there >>> is just realism and nonrealism. And you don't give any definition of >>> "Realism" at all, you just say I'm wrong; but Wikipedia agrees with my >>> definition of the word, it says: >>> "*R**ealism is "counterfactual definiteness", the idea that it is >>> possible to meaningfully describe as definite the result of a measurement >>> which, in fact, has not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the >>> existence of objects, and assign values to their properties, even when they >>> have not been measured)*. >>> >> >> *> Gosh, you must have had to troll through an awful lot of stuff on >> Wikipedia to find that particular definition of realism.* >> > > Mr. Kellett, I am not a troll, if I didn't believe that what I'm saying > has a better than even chance of turning out to be right I would not be > saying it. > > * > I suggest you look for "scientific realism" instead of that >> self-serving nonsense.* >> > > You're talking about two different things that deal with different > subjects. I'm talking about counterfactual definiteness and the subject of > that is nature, it either has counterfactual definiteness or it doesn't and > only experiment can determine which: > > "*In quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability > to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements > that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of > objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured). > The term "counterfactual definiteness" is used in discussions of physics > calculations, especially those related to the phenomenon called quantum > entanglement and those related to the Bell inequalities*." > The trouble is that this emphasis on counterfactual definiteness is peculiar to a particular approach to Bell's theorem. Bell did not assume counterfactual definiteness, and counterfactual definiteness is a characteristic of classical mechanics -- it has never been assumed as part of quantum theory. In fact, quantum theory explicitly rejects counterfactual definiteness as defined above. Counterfactual definiteness > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness> > > But the subject of scientific realism is not the nature of the universe > but the nature of human theories: > > *" Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude toward the content > of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and > unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.*" > Sure, but whether or not the many-worlds theory explicitly embraces the realism of the wave function as a description of the actual content of the universe is what this discussion was about. It is not about classical mechanics, or about counterfactual definiteness. > *Scientific realism > <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/>* > > > *Insults are often the only possible response to trolling behaviour.* > > > Mr. Kellett, did it ever occur to you that somebody who disagrees with you > might actually believe in what they say just as strongly as you do? > You ignore the content of the best thought on the subject, and consistently misrepresent the meanings of common terms as referring to your own self-serving definitions. By not actually listening to, and responding to, what the other person is saying, you are engaging in trolling behaviour -- no matter what you actually believe. Your responses appear to be designed merely to annoy and provoke strong rejoinders. That is not the way of academic discussion..... Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQM2dcuELw_7T6A-22CRJpidvhVhmEiW1Tw%3Dya3kwM91A%40mail.gmail.com.
