quantum mechanics: Kastner\'s brilliant blog (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, July 20, 2013, 12:10 (4145 days ago) @ rekastner

I woke up to find a marvellous exchange between rekastner and David, and I want to express my own delight at the prospect of what for all of us is a possible new avenue or "window into Kant's 'noumenal realm'." (In the light of our own discussion on knowledge, however, I must point out that in The Critique of Pure Reason Kant denied that noumena could be known!) David ... who is too modest to mention that he has already published one brilliant book on Science vs Religion, and has another coming out this autumn ... is right to emphasize that QM is well beyond me, and I have already freely admitted that I am out of my depth. All the same, precisely because I want to learn more, I would like to go on posing my questions. We have, however, to a certain extent been sidetracked by the discussion on knowledge, and I do need to answer you:-rek: You assert: ""even if there are objective realities outside spacetime, we cannot know what they are."
And, if I understand correctly, you're arguing -- in spite of my point that the question of how knowledge is gained, and whether objective knowledge about reality is possible, is the subject of long and sustained debate -- that you can continue to categorically assert that it's impossible to gain objective knowledge about reality? -I have specified "objective realities outside spacetime". I firmly believe that on a commonsense level (as opposed to an absolute level) we can gain objective knowledge about spacetime realities. (See below)-rek: My point is simply this: there is no proof or categorical demonstration anywhere that shows that it is not possible to gain objective knowledge about reality (where the latter is not limited to the world of appearance). Of course there are arguments in favor of that view, and it can be very compelling, but that doesn't make it assertable as a truth. One can give evidence/arguments for this claim, but one can also find strong evidence/arguments against it. -And that is why it is essential to agree on a definition of knowledge. I have offered you my own (which was arrived at on this forum after a very long discussion on epistemology): "knowledge is information the truth of which is recognized by general consensus among those aware of it." I did ask if you accepted this, but if you do not, I need to know what you understand by knowledge. However, you are right that "there is no proof or categorical demonstration anywhere that shows that it is not possible to gain objective knowledge about reality (where the latter is not limited to the world of appearance)." Negatives of this nature cannot be proved. Bertrand Russell, whom you quote in one of your lectures (see my sad story below), pointed out that we cannot prove there is not an invisible china teapot orbiting the sun. We need to agree not only on definitions but also on the level at which we debate these issues.-The remainder of your response concerns people who have changed their beliefs, which of course does not mean that their new beliefs are any more objectively verifiable than their old beliefs. And once again there is a difference between us since you refer to theories as "forms of knowledge". They may be interpretations of reality extrapolated from knowledge, but by my definition they are not knowledge.-In your response to the second half of my post, you say you don't see a 'slippery slope' problem. "The unactualized possibilities in PTI are very specific physical things". Perhaps once more we are talking at cross purposes. I chose the multiverse concept (extended to the multi-dhw concept) as an example because this comes into your paper which David referred us to. You do not regard the multiverse as essential to your own theory, but my problem is that quantum theory HAS been used in this way. And just as with Russell's teapot, we cannot prove that the multiverse is not real (ditto the multi-dhw!). Perhaps it IS real, but for a layman like myself such concepts (like the 11 dimensions of string theory) smack as much of fantasy as of science. Perhaps this could be a problem to cover in your new book, and it would be wonderful if our discussions did prove to be helpful to you as well as to us. 
 
And now to a sad story: I have to report that last night I set aside an hour to listen to your lectures on appearance and reality, but 8 minutes into the first one, at precisely the moment when you were about to read some pages from Bertrand Russell, you began a duet with yourself, in which the beginning of the lecture coincided with, I presume, the reading. I tried to stop the tape, but even when I logged off the internet, and clicked onto my documents, your voice (solo) continued with the introduction. It is a very nice voice ... but it had to be stopped! In the end, all I could do was switch off the computer. I am notorious for my incompetence with technology, and have a special gift for making mechanical things go wrong, but do please check just in case it was NOT my fault!