Physik

Text-Layouts: WeblayoutZeitung3 Spalten

Jünger der Quantenmechanik

Wie Theoreme die keiner versteht den Alltag prägen.

Diejenigen, die nicht schockiert sind, wenn sie zum ersten mal mit Quantenmechanik zu tun haben, haben sie nicht verstanden.

- Niels Bohr

Als Einstein, Rosenberg und Podolski das EPR-Paradoxon formulierten, haben sie sicher nicht an Quantencomputer gedacht - noch weniger sicher an die Verzweiflung der Menschen in der post-Postmoderne. Nun würfelt Gott also doch - bis zum Bruch des Paradigma - und wir kullern aus dem Würfelbecher in eine Welt aus Molekülen. Seit Sartre liegt uns ein "Your life is yours to create" auf den Lippen und der Haussegen hängt schief.

Während der La’placesche Determinusmus den freien Willen des Menschen unmöglich machte, da Alles vorherbestimmt war, und eine Entscheidung die feststeht nicht frei ist, ist nun alles Zufall, schwammig. Der freie Wille bleibt weiterhin auf der Strecke, denn falls nicht Alles determiniert ist, und der Zufallsfaktor in dem Verhalten der Quanten Veränderungen zulässt, sind es wieder nicht wir, nicht unser subjektiv als „Ich“ empfundenes Gebilde einer konstruierten Person in einer konstruierten Realität, die eine Entscheidung treffen, sondern Zufälle auf der Mikro-Ebene.

Allerdings hatte die Unschärfe Auswirkungen auf unser Gefüge, sei es das soziale, moralische oder kulturelle. Im Wissen um die Möglichkeit sämtliche Mystik auf Unschärfe zu reduzieren, ist uns das Gewissen, die Nötigung unser Tun und Handeln vor einem höheren Etwas zu rechtfertigen, abhanden gekommen. Zwar müssen wir uns vor uns selbst rechtfertigen, aber das ist nicht schwer, angesichts der Tatsache, das wir nur ein Haufen Atome sind, und „Moral“ selbst etwas Erdachtes. Kein Fixpunkt in Sicht, an dem man einen Anker der Bestätigung anbringen könnte, keine Boje, an der wir uns vor dem Ertrinken klammern.

Das Land der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten hat erst der Seelenstriptease erschaffen. Da es nun keine Moral mehr gibt - nur die der Geschichte - können wir tun was wir wollen. Die Moderatoren - die Priester der "Generation Klingelton" - rufen einen neuen Staat aus.


RSS feed RSS RSS feed RSS (Kommentare)

Kommentare

farhad wrote on 2008-06-12 23:19:19

Hallo Patrick. Vielen Dank für Ihre Erwiderung.

What I was trying to describe was not about "underdetermination" which was probably declared by Descartes for the first time based of lacking sufficient information to deduce the true situation, something which was claimed later by Thomas S. Kuhn.

Underdetermination is a term used in the discussion of theories and their relation to the evidence that is cited to support them, while the essentially thing is how we feel our environment and then how we can determine it. Based of our seances and experiments we make knowledge and based of knowledge we make theorems for the matters which are not coming to our laboratory.

Now the question is here, if we cannot win even the first step, then how we can be able to step on the stage of theorem successfully?

Let's I bring an explain. Consider a very small and who has only two dimensions. It means this ant can realize only two axis; X & Y . Now, imagine our little ant cope with two metal stings which are connected to different electrical potential that one of them is above the other. For this two dimensional and who is not able to realize Z axis, it would be always as a mystery why the electrical current goes normally without discharging. He will not be able to find a theorem neither.

Now I come back to ourselves. We are as we can realize only X,Y and Z axis, while Euler shows the space can have more than 3 dimensions. So now, if we are about to consider an object which is standing in X, Y and W, or which is standing in X, Y, Z and W, then how we can bring it to our examination Lab?

Farhad Vedad wrote on 2008-06-12 23:15:54

Hallo Patrick. Vielen Dank für Ihre Erwiderung.

What I was trying to describe was not about "underdetermination" which was probably declared by Descartes for the first time based of lacking sufficient information to deduce the true situation, something which was claimed later by Thomas S. Kuhn.

Underdetermination is a term used in the discussion of theories and their relation to the evidence that is cited to support them, while the essentially thing is how we feel our environment and then how we can determine it. Based of our seances and experiments we make knowledge and based of knowledge we make theorems for the matters which are not coming to our laboratory.

Now the question is here, if we cannot win even the first step, then how we can be able to step on the stage of theorem successfully?

Let's I bring an explain. Consider a very small and who has only two dimensions. It means this ant can realize only two axis; X & Y . Now, imagine our little ant cope with two metal stings which are connected to different electrical potential that one of them is above the other. For this two dimensional and who is not able to realize Z axis, it would be always as a mystery why the electrical current goes normally without discharging. He will not be able to find a theorem neither.

Now I come back to ourselves. We are as we can realize only X,Y and Z axis, while Euler shows the space can have more than 3 dimensions. So now, if we are about to consider an object which is standing in X, Y and W, or which is standing in X, Y, Z and W, then how we can bring it to our examination Lab?

Farhad Vedad wrote on 2008-06-12 23:11:50

What I was trying to describe was not about "underdetermination" which was probably declared by Descartes for the first time based of lacking sufficient information to deduce the true situation, something which was claimed later by Thomas S. Kuhn.

Underdetermination is a term used in the discussion of theories and their relation to the evidence that is cited to support them, while the essentially thing is how we feel our environment and then how we can determine it. Based of our seances and experiments we make knowledge and based of knowledge we make theorems for the matters which are not coming to our laboratory.

Now the question is here, if we cannot win even the first step, then how we can be able to step on the stage of theorem successfully?

Let's I bring an explain. Consider a very small and who has only two dimensions. It means this ant can realize only two axis; X & Y . Now, imagine our little ant cope with two metal stings which are connected to different electrical potential that one of them is above the other. For this two dimensional and who is not able to realize Z axis, it would be always as a mystery why the electrical current goes normally without discharging. He will not be able to find a theorem neither.

Now I come back to ourselves. We are as we can realize only X,Y and Z axis, while Euler shows the space can have more than 3 dimensions. So now, if we are about to consider an object which is standing in X, Y and W, or which is standing in X, Y, Z and W, then how we can bring it to our examination Lab?

patrick wrote on 2008-06-09 10:04:56

Hello farhad,

the question you describe here is a somewhat classical one in epistemology and theory of science.

It is known by the name of "Underdetermination of theories by evidence" (UTE). In the history of science there are many situations where two competing theories cannot be discriminated by virtues like truth-likeliness, but are choosen to be the better ones by pragmatic reasoning.

This argument is a classic anti-realism argument, and is usually answered by the scientific realist with the "no-miracles argument":

If the theories we had chosen were not true or near the truth, then why would our estimations based on that theories be affirmed? If our theory predicts the outcomes of some empirical measurements with an accuracy of 99%, it would be a miracle if the theory was completely wrong.

Yet the problem is not solved: Both positions hold up to today, even if the discussion lasts for at least 50 years.

There's another formulation of the UTE problem, which can be called "social constructivism of science": if our strongest theories (f.e. einsteins theory of relativity) were wrong, than all theories based on them had a wrong bias. Or the other way around: if our most basic worldview (f.e. that world is made of matter) was wrong, then alle our theories are wrong.

You can extend that last problem to an epistemological one: if the human brain is only able to see 1st-degree logical structures, but the fundamental physics work with fuzzy logics, or a logical system we cannot even name, because of our way of thinking, than there is no chance to find true theories.

Personally I am a scientific realist: for me the no-miracle argument holds. quantum-mechanics poses a minor problem to my view, since it is by now seen as a miracle in some way. But I think it'll on day be solved, that wave-particle dualism paradoxon.

farhad wrote on 2008-05-28 13:13:46

If we consider the Classic Two-Slit Experiment and try to find the principle of the light, then we have different methods to go on it. If we consider the light as particles with linear movement then we are not able to explain the patterns. If we consider the light as a wave then it will be so simple to find the place of the ripples of the light, but by believing light as wave we got lots of difficulties to explain the other principles of the light, so we hang on "particle/wave duality" and we follow quantum physics, but there is question. Is the law of the creation or is it the way of us to understand our surrounding world? Let's I explain an example. Consider a person who always passes through our street. we don't know him, we don't know where is he going and why, but with the help of statistics we can achieve to the best result to estimate when he is going to pass our street. We estimate his time and his way, but do we really know why he is passing or street? The answer is No, and here is the reason of Einstein's word. This is not playing dice but there is low we don't know. In my opinion from the time we find out the low we would better to follow the theorems such as quantum physics.

farhad wrote on 2008-05-28 12:39:16

If we consider the Classic Two-Slit Experiment and try to find the principle of the light, then we have different methods to go on it. If we consider the light as particles with linear movement then we are not able to explain the patterns. If we consider the light as a wave then it will be so simple to find the place of the ripples of the light, but by believing light as wave we got lots of difficulties to explain the other principles of the light, so we hang on "particle/wave duality" and we follow quantum physics, but there is question. Is the law of the creation or is it the way of us to understand our surrounding world? Let's I explain an example. Consider a person who always passes through our street. we don't know him, we don't know where is he going and why, but with the help of statistics we can achieve to the best result to estimate when he is going to pass our street. We estimate his time and his way, but do we really know why he is passing or street? The answer is No, and here is the reason of Einstein's word. This is not playing dice but there is low we don't know. In my opinion from the time we find out the low we would better to follow the theorems such as quantum physics.

* Why use my real name?


* Pflichtfelder