Stats for nerds
1recommend
4mentions
2people
2015–2023years
50% recommend50% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- Anyone interested in Einstein's ontological and epistemological beliefs should read Arthur Fine's excellent "The Shaky Game - Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory".
One of the most rewarding books I have ever read.
- This is an enormous area of study - one that I have followed for a few decades now. The issue comes down to the 'ontological commitment'.
Scientists have grown less and less willing to make the ontological commitment. These days, if I ever see it, it shocks me.
That's why I'm so interested in this video. What has changed that would make a physicist so confident as to make these kinds of career-breaking ontological commitments?
The most excellent book I have read on the topic, and I highly recommend this to everyone on this thread: Arthur Fine "The Shaky Game: Einstein's Realism and the Quantum Theory". I would love to hear suggestions for books to read as follow-up to this.
- If there is no epistemic support, how is this different from belief? And if it is belief, how is that epistemologically more or less sound than any of the world's other belief systems? How does this jive with Wittgenstein? ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"). How do we reconcile Effie's (excellent) comment above? And a boat-load of other questions besides...
It's one thing to say, we're pretty sure A = B. It is another thing to say, we have definite knowledge that A = B. The epistemologers can be vicious gatekeepers!
To be clear, I want nothing more than to see a break in the log-jam of 20th-21st century epistemology. In fact, I am fighting for it. But I'm extremely skeptical that there is (or can be) any progress here, without a drastic and new approach. I am delighted to see brave physicists making ontological commitments - perhaps they are not aware of the tangled web that awaits them.
This is why Fine's book is called "The Shaky Game". Epistemological grounding for claims in physics is... shaky at best. I am not satisfied with Fine's concession - the NOA (natural ontological attitude). I believe that only a drastic solution will resolve it.
Please, please, please read Fine's book. It lays out the central problems here much better than I can hope to do, and is an pleasant and engaging read. And please stay in touch here and tell me what you think! I am practically obsessed with this topic, but I am not an academic, and have little time to research it.
The central binary here is 'realism' and 'irrealism'. In the simplest reduction, on one side, people say, 'this is what is REAL'; on the other, people say, 'prove it... psst, you can't'. Einstein was a realist, and was extensively ridiculed for it. I wouldn't be surprised if there are no actual ontological realists in physics today, though it is my sincere hope that there may be a few brave souls out there. I suspect that if you engage Tong (e.g.) in the deeper parts of this topic, he would eventually concede to a natural ontological attitude, and back off of the commitment.
I hope I am wrong!
- Apparently I'm kicking the hornets nest by questioning some hypothesis and showing flaws that some critics have found in modern Physics.
I forgot to cite sources and my comment is closed to editing.
Why hawking is wrong about black holes: http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why-hawking-is-wrong-abo...
Why the Higgs Boson found may be an impostor: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-...
Hawking admits he is wrong on black holes, makes corrections to his theories http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-blac...
Why General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't compatible: http://www.quora.com/Why-are-general-relativity-and-quantum-...
Black Holes are like Wormholes: http://mkaku.org/home/articles/blackholes-wormholes-and-the-...
Einstein when he talks about God it is Spinoza's God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism
It is a key to understanding his theories.
Einstein argues with quantum theory scientists: http://www.amazon.com/Shaky-Game-Science-Conceptual-Foundati...
Black Holes do not destroy matter: http://guardianlv.com/2015/04/black-holes-do-not-destroy-mat...
I could be wrong, my citations could be wrong, but this is the way we learn by testing things out.
Related
The Game
37 recommend · 75
Finite and infinite games
58 recommend · 105
Game physics
2 recommend · 2
The fallacy of fine-tuning
3 recommend · 3
Surfing uncertainty
19 recommend · 34
The Inner Game of Tennis
74 recommend · 128
2008–2026
A Mathematician's Lament
47 recommend · 88
