On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:14:31 PM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
But before we can assess whether something has a consistent description we need to specify the description precisely. With a vague description we may be missing an inconsistency lurking somewhere in it or there may appear to be an inconsistency that is not really there. For example, if we try to describe a quantum object in terms of classical physics the description will not be precise enough and the assumptions inherent in those terms will be contradictory. The ideal description would reveal the complete structure of the object down to empty sets but we can't physically probe objects around us to that level. I think that's a cheat. It's not that classical physics was imprecise. > It was just wrong. QM and Newtonian mechanics even have different > ontologies. If you're wrong about the subject matter no amount of logic > will correct that. Logic only explicates what is implicit in the > premises. It's a cheat to appeal to an ideal description when you have no > way of producing such a description or knowing if you have achieved it or > even knowing whether one exists . > It's not a cheat, it's a complete mathematical description. Every mathematical structure can be ultimately described as a pure set. Classical physics and quantum physics have not been described as pure sets and so they are not complete mathematical descriptions. The fact that it is not feasible for us to achieve such a description of physical structures doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. -- 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/bc3a8e35-fa3d-462d-a719-76caaa46ee6fn%40googlegroups.com.
