pood
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 4,492
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
A paper at random from the above archive: On Physics, Metaphysics, and Metametaphysics.
In it, the authors argue that if scientists desire to produce a scientific image of the world, that involves interpretation, which inevitably drags in philosophy, whether scientists like it or not. The paper addresses the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, and in so doing offers two formalisms and a variety of applied ontologies and metaphysics to them.
The formalisms are collapse and no collapse. The ontology for the former is consciousness, and for the latter branching.
They then consider the metaphysics for each applied ontology and formalism. For collapse/consciousness they rule out physicalism but accept the possibility of either phenomenology or substance dualism.
For no collapse/branching they rule out the metaphysics of (David) Lewisian worlds and fictional worlds, leaving only realism.
The value of this? If you’re the shut-up-and-calculate scientist, none. But if, like Einstein, you would like to produce a scientific image of the world, as mentioned above, there is plenty of value. For those scientists, philosophy is inextricably intertwined with science.
In it, the authors argue that if scientists desire to produce a scientific image of the world, that involves interpretation, which inevitably drags in philosophy, whether scientists like it or not. The paper addresses the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, and in so doing offers two formalisms and a variety of applied ontologies and metaphysics to them.
The formalisms are collapse and no collapse. The ontology for the former is consciousness, and for the latter branching.
They then consider the metaphysics for each applied ontology and formalism. For collapse/consciousness they rule out physicalism but accept the possibility of either phenomenology or substance dualism.
For no collapse/branching they rule out the metaphysics of (David) Lewisian worlds and fictional worlds, leaving only realism.
The value of this? If you’re the shut-up-and-calculate scientist, none. But if, like Einstein, you would like to produce a scientific image of the world, as mentioned above, there is plenty of value. For those scientists, philosophy is inextricably intertwined with science.