Vastaus

Käyttäjä4499
Liittynyt21.7.2017
Viestejä5779

"Filosofia tutkii kieltä, tiede todellisuutta, ja kieli on vain pieni osa todellisuutta."

Siis mitä tiede tutkii -- todellisuutta, mitä se on? (heh hee...) Tieteessä on paljon hypoteeseja, ja hypoteesit on filosofiaa. Ilman hypoteesejä tiede etenisi hitaasti, moneen suuntaan ei laisinkaankaan.  Vai millaisesta filosofiasta puhumme? Minusta filosofia on "tieteen aivot". 

Tuli mieleen pari juttua. Ensinnäkin, taiteilijoiden näkemykset kaksoisjuosteesta on aina kuin venytetty torso...  Histonit puuttuu. Vähän kuin kuvaisit huonekalun rakentamista, ja poistaisit kuvankäsittelyllä ihmisen kuvasta: "vasara teki työn"!

Toiseksi, tämä on hauska kuvaus ajattelutavasta, jota voisi mielestäni pitää filosofisena:

"In a sea of interpretations of quantum weirdness, QBism swims alone. The traditional “Copenhagen interpretation” treats the observer as somehow standing outside of nature, imbued with mysterious wave-function-collapsing powers, governed by laws of physics that are different from those that govern what’s being observed. That’s all well and good until a second observer comes along to observe the first observer. The “many worlds” interpretation claims that the universe and all of its observers are described by a single, giant wave function that never collapses. Of course, to make that work, one must insist that at every fork in the road — every coin toss, every decision, every moment — the wave function branches and so do we, splitting into countless versions of ourselves who have collectively done and not done everything we’ll ever do or not do. For those to whom a set of infinite parallel realities is too high a price to pay to avoid wave-function collapse, there’s always the Bohmian interpretation, which seeks to restore a more concrete reality to the world by postulating the existence of a guiding force that permeates the universe and deterministically governs everything in it. Unfortunately, this new reality lies forever out of reach of scientific probing.

Those interpretations all have something in common: They treat the wave function as a description of an objective reality shared by multiple observers. QBism, on the other hand, treats the wave function as a description of a single observer’s subjective knowledge. It resolves all of the quantum paradoxes, but at the not insignificant cost of anything we might call “reality.” Then again, maybe that’s what quantum mechanics has been trying to tell us all along — that a single objective reality is an illusion." 

A Private View of Quantum Reality

Mitä illuusio tarkoittaa, sekin on varmaan filosofinen kysymys... ai niin, kohta 1.  No miten olisi "todellinen illuusio".