On 3/1/2022 1:59 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
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.
And the fact that you can form a sentence using the word doesn't mean it
exists either.
Brent
--
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/5381f7e1-439b-fb0d-1918-2ac7bb9b8962%40gmail.com.
