Quantum physics can explain the suffering in the world!

[Underseer]

https://qz.com/1291485/quantum-physics-can-help-explain-much-of-the-worlds-suffering/

No.

No, it can't.

That's not how that works.

That's not how that ever worked.

Holy fuck, but I am tired of woo-peddlers using quantum physics to explain their idiocy just because they know that no one in the public really understands quantum.

 

[skepticalbip]

But... but... but.... Kaitlin Lavinder used both the words "quantum" and "entanglement" in that article. How could you possibly think this is woo?

 

[Bomb#20]

https://qz.com/1291485/quantum-physics-can-help-explain-much-of-the-worlds-suffering/

No.

No, it can't.

That's not how that works.

Yes. Yes, it can. That's exactly how it works. Quantum physics can explain suffering. Quantum physics can explain everything*. That's what makes it quantum physics and not quantum lexicography.

(* Not applicable to gravity. Or the Measurement Problem.)

 

[braces_for_impact]

So this means my magnetic bracelet does work! Woot!

 

[Peez]

Sadly, if an internet article mentions quantum physics one can be relatively confident that it is craziness (the actual articles that address quantum physics correctly are so rare that they can almost be ignored).

Peez

 

[steve_bank]

https://qz.com/1291485/quantum-physics-can-help-explain-much-of-the-worlds-suffering/

No.

No, it can't.

That's not how that works.

That's not how that ever worked.

Holy fuck, but I am tired of woo-peddlers using quantum physics to explain their idiocy just because they know that no one in the public really understands quantum.

Wu Wu is as WU Wu does. Hmmm...If QM says everything is indeterminate at the most fundamental level. your proof that it is all subjective. You are not real, just a swarm of probabilities with no substance, an illusion, indeterminate particles interacting with each other. At any instant your brain has a probability of going from one state to the other.

 

[Underseer]

https://qz.com/1291485/quantum-physics-can-help-explain-much-of-the-worlds-suffering/

No.

No, it can't.

That's not how that works.

Yes. Yes, it can. That's exactly how it works. Quantum physics can explain suffering. Quantum physics can explain everything*. That's what makes it quantum physics and not quantum lexicography.

(* Not applicable to gravity. Or the Measurement Problem.)

1. As you point out, QM does not explain everything.
2. Anything that explains everything explains nothing. Example: if God is responsible for everything, then saying "God did it" has zero explanatory power. We can't actually use the "god did it" explanation to acquire new pieces of knowledge.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But... but... but.... Kaitlin Lavinder used both the words "quantum" and "entanglement" in that article. How could you possibly think this is woo?

Is that when two quanta have a fender bender?

 

[Bomb#20]

https://qz.com/1291485/quantum-physics-can-help-explain-much-of-the-worlds-suffering/

No.

No, it can't.

That's not how that works.

Yes. Yes, it can. That's exactly how it works. Quantum physics can explain suffering. Quantum physics can explain everything*. That's what makes it quantum physics and not quantum lexicography.

(* Not applicable to gravity. Or the Measurement Problem.)

1. As you point out, QM does not explain everything.
2. Anything that explains everything explains nothing. Example: if God is responsible for everything, then saying "God did it" has zero explanatory power. We can't actually use the "god did it" explanation to acquire new pieces of knowledge.

That it doesn't actually explain everything is beside the point -- it explains so close to everything that "everything" is a pretty accurate approximation. In particular, quantum physics explains chemistry, and chemistry explains evolution, and evolution explains the suffering in the world.

As to your second point, you're equivocating on "explains everything". When we figure out quantum gravity and what a measurement is and any other observed phenomena QM currently might leave unexplained, and quantum physics really does explain everything, that won't make it explain nothing. That will make it awesome for acquiring new pieces of knowledge. The sense of "explains everything" that implies "explains nothing" is the sense that refers to hypotheses that are consistent with all imaginable observations, not the sense that refers to hypotheses that distinguish the actual observations from the merely imaginable ones. The former have an explanation for all that we see, but they would still have an explanation for all that we see even if we saw something completely different. That's not QM. There are all manner of possible observations we don't see, that QM would have no explanation for if we did see them. QM is falsifiable; it's hypotheses that "explain everything" merely because they're unfalsifiable that explain nothing.

 

[skepticalbip]

.....snip.....

QM is falsifiable; it's hypotheses that "explain everything" merely because they're unfalsifiable that explain nothing.

Was this a jab at string theory?

 

[bilby]

1. As you point out, QM does not explain everything.
2. Anything that explains everything explains nothing. Example: if God is responsible for everything, then saying "God did it" has zero explanatory power. We can't actually use the "god did it" explanation to acquire new pieces of knowledge.

That it doesn't actually explain everything is beside the point -- it explains so close to everything that "everything" is a pretty accurate approximation. In particular, quantum physics explains chemistry, and chemistry explains evolution, and evolution explains the suffering in the world.

As to your second point, you're equivocating on "explains everything". When we figure out quantum gravity and what a measurement is and any other observed phenomena QM currently might leave unexplained, and quantum physics really does explain everything, that won't make it explain nothing. That will make it awesome for acquiring new pieces of knowledge. The sense of "explains everything" that implies "explains nothing" is the sense that refers to hypotheses that are consistent with all imaginable observations, not the sense that refers to hypotheses that distinguish the actual observations from the merely imaginable ones. The former have an explanation for all that we see, but they would still have an explanation for all that we see even if we saw something completely different. That's not QM. There are all manner of possible observations we don't see, that QM would have no explanation for if we did see them. QM is falsifiable; it's hypotheses that "explain everything" merely because they're unfalsifiable that explain nothing.

Indeed, Underseer's problem isn't with hypotheses that explain everything; It is with hypotheses that explain anything.

And while quantum physics provides the foundation for understanding of suffering, it cannot be used directly to do that - the maths would be impossible. As you point out, there are several levels of approximation between QM and suffering, including (but not necessarily limited to) Chemistry, Biology, Evolution and probably Sociology and Economics too, if it is human suffering that we are interested in. Each more vague, but more amenable to calculation, than the last.

 

[DBT]

Quantum is the substructure of all things, therefore Quantum theory can be used to explain all things, haha.

 

[Underseer]

1. As you point out, QM does not explain everything.
2. Anything that explains everything explains nothing. Example: if God is responsible for everything, then saying "God did it" has zero explanatory power. We can't actually use the "god did it" explanation to acquire new pieces of knowledge.

That it doesn't actually explain everything is beside the point -- it explains so close to everything that "everything" is a pretty accurate approximation. In particular, quantum physics explains chemistry, and chemistry explains evolution, and evolution explains the suffering in the world.

As to your second point, you're equivocating on "explains everything". When we figure out quantum gravity and what a measurement is and any other observed phenomena QM currently might leave unexplained, and quantum physics really does explain everything, that won't make it explain nothing. That will make it awesome for acquiring new pieces of knowledge. The sense of "explains everything" that implies "explains nothing" is the sense that refers to hypotheses that are consistent with all imaginable observations, not the sense that refers to hypotheses that distinguish the actual observations from the merely imaginable ones. The former have an explanation for all that we see, but they would still have an explanation for all that we see even if we saw something completely different. That's not QM. There are all manner of possible observations we don't see, that QM would have no explanation for if we did see them. QM is falsifiable; it's hypotheses that "explain everything" merely because they're unfalsifiable that explain nothing.

Indeed, Underseer's problem isn't with hypotheses that explain everything; It is with hypotheses that explain anything.

And while quantum physics provides the foundation for understanding of suffering, it cannot be used directly to do that - the maths would be impossible. As you point out, there are several levels of approximation between QM and suffering, including (but not necessarily limited to) Chemistry, Biology, Evolution and probably Sociology and Economics too, if it is human suffering that we are interested in. Each more vague, but more amenable to calculation, than the last.

You missed neuroscience. That's kind of an important step, and a place where we currently have an awful lot of gaps in our understanding.

But otherwise, yeah.

I'm mostly mocking "first cause" arguments in general.

The moment a scientist starts invoking "God did it" as an explanation for natural phenomena is generally the moment they stop producing anything of value scientifically. We can technically say "God did it" explains everything, but unlike a proper scientific idea, it cannot lead to new pieces of knowledge. It doesn't lead to new questions, but rather it ends a line of questioning.