Comments on: Pseudo-Science and Pseudo-Philosophy http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/2009/12/09/pseudo-science-and-pseudo-philosophy/ Larry A. Herzberg's Blog Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:03:43 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Larry http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/2009/12/09/pseudo-science-and-pseudo-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-11060 Larry Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:20:23 +0000 http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/?p=625#comment-11060 If I knew more about physics, I'd look into the modal presuppositions underlying mainstream physical multiverse theories. My guess is that although they are conceptually independent, multiverse theorists that presuppose an infinity of universes would tend to find modal realism a somewhat "natural" view. It would also be interesting to investigate the extent to which the "spatialization" of time as a fourth dimension, where (I take it) the past and the future exist in the same physical sense as the present, influences how possibilities are conceptualized. One set of modal intuitions might influence the other. But, alas, I have neither the time nor the quantitative ability to pursue a degree in physics. That book you mentioned sounds interesting. Thanks for the tip. If I knew more about physics, I’d look into the modal presuppositions underlying mainstream physical multiverse theories. My guess is that although they are conceptually independent, multiverse theorists that presuppose an infinity of universes would tend to find modal realism a somewhat “natural” view. It would also be interesting to investigate the extent to which the “spatialization” of time as a fourth dimension, where (I take it) the past and the future exist in the same physical sense as the present, influences how possibilities are conceptualized. One set of modal intuitions might influence the other. But, alas, I have neither the time nor the quantitative ability to pursue a degree in physics.

That book you mentioned sounds interesting. Thanks for the tip.

]]> By: Marshall Missner http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/2009/12/09/pseudo-science-and-pseudo-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-11058 Marshall Missner Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:56:04 +0000 http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/?p=625#comment-11058 I just wanted to make the distinction between interpretations of quantum mechanics and interpretations of modal statements. No doubt Mr. Lanza's views are very confused, and it is hard, I think, to trace the particular path he took to get to his own conclusions. I have no idea about him, but I doubt that philosophical views about modal statements were part of his actual thought process. Here is my speculation about him: he heard about the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics and how that leads to the view that there is a infinity (I am not sure this is a consequence of the many worlds interpretation) of different universes all existing at the same time. From this he made the inference that everything that could happen does happen. As far as I can tell this does not follow from the premise of their being an infinity of universes. Whatever. On a related subject I just read a little book by Jeremy Bernstein called Quantum Leaps. Bernstein is a physicist and the book is a bunch of little articles about all sorts of people who he claims have used quantum mechanics to support some view or other, but who didn't understand the physics very well. I just wanted to make the distinction between interpretations of quantum mechanics and interpretations of modal statements. No doubt Mr. Lanza’s views are very confused, and it is hard, I think, to trace the particular path he took to get to his own conclusions. I have no idea about him, but I doubt that philosophical views about modal statements were part of his actual thought process. Here is my speculation about him: he heard about the many world’s interpretation of quantum mechanics and how that leads to the view that there is a infinity (I am not sure this is a consequence of the many worlds interpretation) of different universes all existing at the same time. From this he made the inference that everything that could happen does happen. As far as I can tell this does not follow from the premise of their being an infinity of universes. Whatever.
On a related subject I just read a little book by Jeremy Bernstein called Quantum Leaps. Bernstein is a physicist and the book is a bunch of little articles about all sorts of people who he claims have used quantum mechanics to support some view or other, but who didn’t understand the physics very well.

]]> By: Larry http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/2009/12/09/pseudo-science-and-pseudo-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-11057 Larry Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:57:33 +0000 http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/?p=625#comment-11057 Thanks for the comment, Marshall. I don't doubt that you're right about the historical facts - in fact, it would be surprising if physicists paid any attention to philosophers (although some do show an interest formal logic, if only to suggest that empirical observations refute it). So I just changed the text of the post to allow for multiverse physical theories that do not presuppose Lewis-style possible world semantics (although, as I now make clearer in the post, I think that Lanza does combine a less metaphysically-loaded version of multiversism with modal realism). Please read the current version of the post, and me know if it puts your criticism to rest... Thanks for the comment, Marshall. I don’t doubt that you’re right about the historical facts – in fact, it would be surprising if physicists paid any attention to philosophers (although some do show an interest formal logic, if only to suggest that empirical observations refute it). So I just changed the text of the post to allow for multiverse physical theories that do not presuppose Lewis-style possible world semantics (although, as I now make clearer in the post, I think that Lanza does combine a less metaphysically-loaded version of multiversism with modal realism). Please read the current version of the post, and me know if it puts your criticism to rest…

]]> By: Marshall Missner http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/2009/12/09/pseudo-science-and-pseudo-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-11056 Marshall Missner Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:57:36 +0000 http://larryherzberg.com/wordpress/?p=625#comment-11056 I agree wholeheartedly that crackpots use the mysteries of quantum mechanics to support all sorts of silly ideas. But I do think you confused the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and Kripke's possible world semantics for modal logic. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was developed in the 1950s as an attempt to deal with some of the strange aspects of the equations of the scientific theory concerning the positions and properties of very small particles. As far as I know, this interpretation multiplies universes, but has very few theoretical assumptions, and so in a way it observes Occam's Razor, as far as theoretical assumptions go, but not as far as universes are involved. In any case I do not think the many worlds interpretation is widely held at the present time. Possible worlds as a way of understanding modal statements has nothing to do with observations of small particles or the equations used in quantum mechanics. I don't think there would be anything inconsistent about accepting the reality of possible worlds when it comes to understanding modal statements, and rejecting the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Short version--Kripke's views are irrelevant to the whole issue. I agree wholeheartedly that crackpots use the mysteries of quantum mechanics to support all sorts of silly ideas.
But I do think you confused the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and Kripke’s possible world semantics for modal logic. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was developed in the 1950s as an attempt to deal with some of the strange aspects of the equations of the scientific theory concerning the positions and properties of very small particles. As far as I know, this interpretation multiplies universes, but has very few theoretical assumptions, and so in a way it observes Occam’s Razor, as far as theoretical assumptions go, but not as far as universes are involved. In any case I do not think the many worlds interpretation is widely held at the present time.
Possible worlds as a way of understanding modal statements has nothing to do with observations of small particles or the equations used in quantum mechanics. I don’t think there would be anything inconsistent about accepting the reality of possible worlds when it comes to understanding modal statements, and rejecting the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Short version–Kripke’s views are irrelevant to the whole issue.

]]>