Beauty

[Nous]

Interpretation is theory.

Then, in the same way that the existence of different "theories" about the nature of the wave function does not imply that the wave function is subjective, the existence of different "theories" about the nature of beauty does not imply that beauty is subjective.

You don't answer my questions about the objectivity of beauty.

I didn't see a question.

 

[Koldo]

My position on the issue of the objectivity vs. subjectivity of beauty is (as the SEP article primarily discussed) it isn't wholly either. And along with Aristotle, I analogized beauty with the taste of sweetness, which has both objective and subjective components. See the OP.

BTW, did you answer the questions in the OP?

I understand your position. What I don't understand is how you propose to substantiate that there is any objectivity at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then, in the same way that the existence of different "theories" about the nature of the wave function does not imply that the wave function is subjective, the existence of different "theories" about the nature of beauty does not imply that beauty is subjective.

Sounds like gobbeldeegook to me.

I didn't see a question.

That explains a few things.

 

[Polymath257]

What do you mean by claiming that you choose the axioms?

I mean that is two ways:

1) We choose which specific axioms we want to start with.
2) We choose which system of mathematics we want to use by choosing axioms based on our preferences.

Euclid's second axiom is: If equals are added to equals, then the wholes are equal.

Yes, that is an assumption about both equality and addition. It is how we have constructed our concepts.

Obviously no human chose that axiom to be true.

On the contrary, Euclid did exactly that.

It isn't possible to choose that axiom to be false.

Of course It is. it depends on our intuitions about equality and addition. Use a different set of intuitions and you get different properties and different, even in-equivalent axiom systems.

Given the antecedent of the sentence, there is no other option to choose for the consequent. So what does your claim mean?

It means we *do* have a choice. We can choose not to use the law of excluded middle. We can choose different axioms for equality. We can choose different systems for logic, arithmetic, and mathematics in general. There is much more latitude here than most people realize.

 

[Polymath257]

What? The Many Worlds Interpretation enatils an objectively real wave function.

What do the "working physicists" you know do with evidence such as:

Quantum mechanics is an outstandingly successful description of nature, underpinning fields from biology through chemistry to physics. At its heart is the quantum wavefunction, the central tool for describing quantum systems. Yet it is still unclear what the wavefunction actually is: does it merely represent our limited knowledge of a system, or is it an element of reality? Recent no-go theorems[11–16] argued that if there was any underlying reality to start with, the wavefunction must be real. However, that conclusion relied on debatable assumptions, without which a partial knowledge interpretation can be maintained to some extent[15, 18]. A different approach is to impose bounds on the degree to which knowledge interpretations can explain quantum phenomena, such as why we cannot perfectly distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states[19–21]. Here we experimentally test this approach with single photons. We find that no knowledge interpretation can fully explain the indistinguishability of non-orthogonal quantum states in three and four dimensions. Assuming that some underlying reality exists, our results strengthen the view that the entire wavefunction should be real. The only alternative is to adopt more unorthodox concepts such as backwards-intime causation, or to completely abandon any notion of objective reality.​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6213.pdf

Did you read this article? The main issue is whether there are underlying 'ontic states' that give rise to the wave functions and whether it is possible to have such and describe the wave function as our lack of knowledge of those ontic states.

But this is a fundamental aspect of QM: that there is no 'underlying ontic state'. There are only observables! So the whole paper is based on an assumption that flies in the face of QM. Now, in some ways it is similar to Bell's paper in that it shows the limitations of hidden variable theories. But few people take such theories seriously any more.

Realism of the form this paper works with is dead.

 

[Nous]

I understand your position. What I don't understand is how you propose to substantiate that there is any objectivity at all.

I don't know how to be clearer about it--the issue of what is beautiful in mathematics (in mathematical objects) is discussed extensively in the OP, including by mathematicians in the articles linked to. Did you read the OP, including the links? Explain what it is that the mathematicians found to be beautiful about certain mathematical things.

Do you deny that symmetry exists, and that a sphere is symmetrical?

 

[Nous]

Sounds like gobbeldeegook to me.

Perhaps that is because your claim that theories are intepretations is gobbeldygook.

BTW, did you answer the questions in the OP?

 

[Polymath257]

But some examples of symmetry are beautiful?

Some examples of partial symmetries are seen as beautiful by humans.

 

[Nous]

Obviously no human chose that axiom to be true.

Prove it. (See above for what "prove it" means.)

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know how to be clearer about it--the issue of what is beautiful in mathematics (in mathematical objects) is discussed extensively in the OP, including by mathematicians in the articles linked to. Did you read the OP, including the links? Explain what it is that the mathematicians found to be beautiful about certain mathematical things.

Well, there are a number of aspects that are found, by mathematicians, to be beautiful. For example, a deduction that gets to the 'heart' of an idea. A particular type of insight that points to better and deeper results. An elegant use of a known result to show a seemingly impossible problem is easy.

Do you deny that symmetry exists, and that a sphere is symmetrical?

Symmetry is a mathematical concept involving the collection of 'structure preserving transformations' some mathematical object has. Spheres are symmetrical because there are many distance preserving transformations that take the sphere back to the sphere.

Now, do *actual* spheres exist in the real world? No. Are there any *actual* structure preserving transformations in the real world? No.

Symmetries are a mathematical abstraction, not something that exists in the real world. Just like planes with no thickness or lines with no width, symmetries are an idealization with no 'real' counterparts.

 

[Nous]

Did you read this article? The main issue is whether there are underlying 'ontic states' that give rise to the wave functions and whether it is possible to have such and describe the wave function as our lack of knowledge of those ontic states.

But this is a fundamental aspect of QM: that there is no 'underlying ontic state'. There are only observables! So the whole paper is based on an assumption that flies in the face of QM. Now, in some ways it is similar to Bell's paper in that it shows the limitations of hidden variable theories. But few people take such theories seriously any more.

Realism of the form this paper works with is dead.

Prove that your claims are true that physicists have decided that "realism" of the wave function is "dead".

Apparently you are claiming that the Many Worlds Interpretation and Bohm's theory are "dead." Prove it.

 

[Polymath257]

Prove that your claims are true that physicists have decided that "realism" of the wave function is "dead".

Apparently you are claiming that the Many Worlds Interpretation and Bohm's theory are "dead." Prove it.

Few physicists take them seriously, especially Bohm's ideas. They seem to be liked by philosophers, but they don't count in this.

 

[Koldo]

I don't know how to be clearer about it--the issue of what is beautiful in mathematics (in mathematical objects) is discussed extensively in the OP, including by mathematicians in the articles linked to. Did you read the OP, including the links? Explain what it is that the mathematicians found to be beautiful about certain mathematical things.

Do you deny that symmetry exists, and that a sphere is symmetrical?

I don't find symmetry, nor mathematics, to be beautiful.
Next.

 

[Nous]

I don't find symmetry, nor mathematics, to be beautiful.

Is that an answer to any question that you've been asked?

 

[Nous]

Few physicists take them seriously, especially Bohm's ideas. They seem to be liked by philosophers, but they don't count in this.

If you ever become able to do more than make claims that youare unable to prove to be true (because they have no basis in reality), you will let me know?

 

[Koldo]

Is that an answer to any question that you've been asked?

No. It is a statement that any argument for beauty being objective that relies on the beauty of mathematics is going to be irrelevant. You would need to show that I am perceiving it wrong. Can you do it ? I don't think so, therefore, next one please.

 

[Polymath257]

If you ever become able to do more than make claims that youare unable to prove to be true (because they have no basis in reality), you will let me know?

How many professional physicists do you know? How many classes at the graduate level or above have you taken in physics? *YOU* seem to be the one making extreme claims with nothing to support them. I've pointed out where your ideas do not correspond to the reality as seen by the professional physicists at the research institutions I have been around.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps that is because your claim that theories are intepretations is gobbeldygook.

BTW, did you answer the questions in the OP?

"Gobbeldegook" is jargon which lacks meaning.
So you misuse the word if you use it to simply say that I'm wrong.

 

[Nous]

How many professional physicists do you know? How many classes at the graduate level or above have you taken in physics?

My claims are premised on facts, not the junior high school stuff you're doing such as how many physicists you claim to know.

The objective or subjective status of the wave function is an essential issue in most interpretations of QM. See the table here: Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

The most puzzling issue in the foundations of quantum mechanics is perhaps that of the status of the wave function of a system in a quantum universe. Is the wave function objective or subjective? Does it represent the physical state of the system or merely our information about the system? And if the former, does it provide a complete description of the system or only a partial description?​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.4575.pdf

Foundational investigations in quantum mechanics, both experimental and theoretical, gave birth to the field of quantum information science. Nevertheless, the foundations of quantum mechanics themselves remain hotly debated in the scientific community, and no consensus on essential questions has been reached.​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf

Be sure to see the poll. Your claims that physicistis have decided that realism of the wave function is "dead" is apparently a claim made out of ignorance.

And, again, the evidence, which you obviously haven't refuted:

Quantum mechanics is an outstandingly successful description of nature, underpinning fields from biology through chemistry to physics. At its heart is the quantum wavefunction, the central tool for describing quantum systems. Yet it is still unclear what the wavefunction actually is: does it merely represent our limited knowledge of a system, or is it an element of reality? Recent no-go theorems[11–16] argued that if there was any underlying reality to start with, the wavefunction must be real. However, that conclusion relied on debatable assumptions, without which a partial knowledge interpretation can be maintained to some extent[15, 18]. A different approach is to impose bounds on the degree to which knowledge interpretations can explain quantum phenomena, such as why we cannot perfectly distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states[19–21]. Here we experimentally test this approach with single photons. We find that no knowledge interpretation can fully explain the indistinguishability of non-orthogonal quantum states in three and four dimensions. Assuming that some underlying reality exists, our results strengthen the view that the entire wavefunction should be real. The only alternative is to adopt more unorthodox concepts such as backwards-intime causation, or to completely abandon any notion of objective reality.​

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6213.pdf

*YOU* seem to be the one making extreme claims with nothing to support them.

Anything I've said here that you believe to be erroneous, be sure to quote it and cite your sources demonstrating its error. That's what I'm doing with your false claims.

 

[Nous]

No. It is a statement that any argument for beauty being objective that relies on the beauty of mathematics is going to be irrelevant. You would need to show that I am perceiving it wrong.

No issue on this thread depends on anyone needing to show that something you've claimed about yourself is false. Try again.