Anonymous Panda<p>One thing I hate is when, reviewing an article on AI, a SCI-FI example appears. Hey, folks, this is dangerous!</p><p><a href="https://defcon.social/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a> <a href="https://defcon.social/tags/AiResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AiResearch</span></a> <a href="https://defcon.social/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a></p>
mstdn.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A general-purpose Mastodon server with a 500 character limit. All languages are welcome.
Administered by:
Server stats:
12Kactive users
mstdn.social: About · Status · Profiles directory · Privacy policy · Terms of service
Mastodon: About · Get the app · Keyboard shortcuts · View source code · v4.4.1
#philosophyofscience
0 posts · 0 participants · 0 posts today
SelfAwarePatterns<p><strong>What physicists believe about quantum mechanics</strong></p><p>A few years ago David Bourget and David Chalmers did <a href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/2021/11/07/what-philosophers-believe-2020-edition/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">a follow up survey</a> to the 2009 one polling philosophers on what they believe about various questions. One of them was quantum mechanics, particularly the measurement problem and its various interpretations. Over the decades there have been surveys of physicists themselves on this question, but most, if not all, were with a very small sample size, usually only the attendees at a particular conference.</p><p>As part of the Quantum Centennial (the celebration of 100 years of quantum mechanics) <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02342-y" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Nature has done a fairly large survey of the community of quantum researchers with over 1100 respondents</a>. The results are interesting, although not particularly surprising.</p><p>Copenhagen still comes out on top with 36%. It’s interesting that it’s stronger with experimentalists than with theorists (half vs a third). I suspect the experimentalists are hewing to a very pragmatic version of the interpretation. Which highlights a concern that the term “Copenhagen interpretation” means different things to different people. The article acknowledges this, noting that 29% of those who selected Copenhagen favored an ontic version of the wave function vs 63% who came down epistemic.</p><p>15% are Everettians (or “consistent-history” advocates, who I suspect object to being lumped in with the many-worlders), 7% Pilot-wave, 4% Spontaneous collapse, 4% Relational Quantum Mechanics, and a smattering in other views.</p><p>Overall 47% of respondents see the wave function as just a mathematical tool, with 36% taking a partial or complete realist take (my view), and 8% taking it to only represent subjective beliefs about experimental outcomes. </p><p>45% see a boundary between classical and quantum objects (5% see it as sharp) while 45% don’t (my view). </p><p>Just before the paywall, there is a question about the observer in quantum mechanics, with 9% saying it must be conscious. Another 56% said there had to be an observer, but that “observer” can just be interaction with a macroscopic environment, and 28% arguing that no observer at all is needed. (I think interaction with the macroscopic environment and the resulting decoherence is key, but it seems misleading to call that environment an “observer”.)</p><p>All interesting. Of course, how popular or unpopular a view is has no real bearing on whether it’s reality. Prior to Galileo’s telescopic observations in 1609, an Earth-centered universe was the most popular cosmology. Only a miniscule handful of astronomers accepted Copernicus’ view about the Earth orbiting the sun. Until the quantum-measurement equivalent of the telescope comes along, all we can do is reason as best as possible with the current data.</p><p>The results here are interesting to compare with what the philosophers thought on the Bourget-Chalmers survey. On quantum mechanics, philosophers were 24% agnostic, 22% hidden variable theories, 19% many-worlds, 17% collapse, and 13% epistemic. Once we take into account all the various forms of “Copenhagen interpretation”, these seem in a similar ballpark, except that philosophers are more open to hidden variable approaches. (It may be easier to favor hidden variables if you’re not the one who has to find them.)</p><p>My own view comes down to a preference for structural completeness (or at least more structurally complete models), which to me currently favors a cautious and minimalist take on the Everettian approach (as I <a href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/2025/04/17/many-worlds-without-necessarily-many-worlds/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">described</a> a few months ago). However, my credence in this conclusion is only 75-80%. That the survey indicates most physicists aren’t super confident in their own conclusions here makes me feel better. </p><p>This reminds me of a new approach that Jacob Barandes has been promoting on various podcasts (see this <a href="https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2025/07/28/323-jacob-barandes-on-indivisible-stochastic-quantum-mechanics/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">recent Sean Carroll episode</a> as an example). Barandes calls it Indivisible Stochastic Quantum Mechanics. I won’t pretend to understand exactly what he’s trying to accomplish with it, but it involves rejecting the wave function completely, and replacing it with something more stochastic from the beginning. Which strikes me as less structurally complete than the wave function, and so a move in the wrong direction. But maybe I’ll turn out to be wrong.</p><p>Anyway, now we have a firmer idea of where the physics community currently stands on quantum interpretations, or at least a firmer one than we did before. How would you have answered the survey questions? (There’s actually a small quiz in the article which is worth taking to see the logic leading to particular interpretations.)</p><p><a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/" target="_blank">#InterpretationsOfQuantumMechanics</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/philosophy/" target="_blank">#Philosophy</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/philosophy-of-science/" target="_blank">#PhilosophyOfScience</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/physics/" target="_blank">#Physics</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/qm/" target="_blank">#QM</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/quantum-mechanics/" target="_blank">#QuantumMechanics</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/science/" target="_blank">#Science</a></p>
John A. Mulhall<p>Is the Gen AI craze distracting us from a deeper revolution? 🤖🌌 Visionary technologists—modern-day Teslas—see the next leap not in AI, but in quantum physics.</p><p>Explore how quantum technology, not computer science, may define our future:</p><p>🔗 <a href="https://authormulhall.com/will-quantum-technology-transform-the-future-of-science/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">authormulhall.com/will-quantum</span><span class="invisible">-technology-transform-the-future-of-science/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.ie/tags/QuantumPhysics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>QuantumPhysics</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.ie/tags/FutureTech" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>FutureTech</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.ie/tags/Science" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Science</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.ie/tags/Innovation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Innovation</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.ie/tags/TechEthics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>TechEthics</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.ie/tags/ReadingCommunity" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ReadingCommunity</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.ie/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a></p>
Quentin Ruyant<p>Part three of my blog series on the semantic conception of scientific theories. Is scientific representation non-linguistic? More pictorial or informal perhaps? Has it to do with idealisations?</p><p><a href="https://pragmatictheories.blogspot.com/2025/07/reflections-3-is-scientific.html" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">pragmatictheories.blogspot.com</span><span class="invisible">/2025/07/reflections-3-is-scientific.html</span></a></p><p><a href="https://zirk.us/tags/philsci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philsci</span></a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a></p>
formuchdeliberation<p><a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/historyofphilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>historyofphilosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/metaphysics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>metaphysics</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/epistemology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>epistemology</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/ethics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ethics</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/logic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>logic</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/medieval" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>medieval</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/analyticphilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>analyticphilosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/continentalphilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>continentalphilosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/easternphilosphy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>easternphilosphy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/indianphilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>indianphilosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/africanphilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>africanphilosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/literature" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>literature</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/AncientGreekPhilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AncientGreekPhilosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/philosophyofmind" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofmind</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/rationalism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>rationalism</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/Idealism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Idealism</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/scepticism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>scepticism</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/reason" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>reason</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/contemporaryphilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>contemporaryphilosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/history" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>history</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.world/tags/theology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>theology</span></a> <br>Philosophy through time… – philosophy indefinitely<br><a href="https://philosophyindefinitely.wordpress.com/philosophy-through-time/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">philosophyindefinitely.wordpre</span><span class="invisible">ss.com/philosophy-through-time/</span></a></p>
Quentin Ruyant<p>I'm summarising some reflections after one year of research on conceptions of scientific theories on my blog. Here's part 2 of 4(?).</p><p>Is the semantic view about there being two stages in scientific representation?<br><a href="https://pragmatictheories.blogspot.com/2025/07/reflections-2-is-semantic-view-about.html" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">pragmatictheories.blogspot.com</span><span class="invisible">/2025/07/reflections-2-is-semantic-view-about.html</span></a></p><p><a href="https://zirk.us/tags/philsci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philsci</span></a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a></p>
Ross Gayler#HiveMind request for pointers: philosophy of science applied to technology/engineering research
Austin Miller<p>Just published a preprint I've been working on:</p><p>🌀 Gödelian Constraint on Epistemic Freedom (GCEF)</p><p>A topological limit on embedded cognition — how agents inside systems can’t fully model them, and why that constraint refracts through science, AI, and consciousness.</p><p><a href="https://zenodo.org/record/15875975" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">zenodo.org/record/15875975</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p>Looking for readers, critics, weird minds. Let’s talk.</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Epistemology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Epistemology</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/OpenScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>OpenScience</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/AI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AI</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/EmbeddedCognition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>EmbeddedCognition</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/SystemsThinking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>SystemsThinking</span></a></p>
Quentin Ruyant<p>On the practical equivalence between semantic and syntactic conceptions of theories<br><a href="https://pragmatictheories.blogspot.com/2025/07/having-reviewed-work-of-most.html" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">pragmatictheories.blogspot.com</span><span class="invisible">/2025/07/having-reviewed-work-of-most.html</span></a></p><p><a href="https://zirk.us/tags/philsci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philsci</span></a> <a href="https://zirk.us/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a></p>
Frédéric Jaëck<p>The conference “Mathematics as an artistic experience”, organized by the Grothendieck Institute in collaboration with the Henri Poincaré Institute in Paris and the MICS Laboratory of Centrale Supélec (Paris-Saclay University), will be held on Friday 11 July 2025, at the Hermite Amphitheater of the Henri Poincaré Institute, 11 Rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 75005 Paris, from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. <br>The conference will feature talks by Charles Alunni, Coordinator of the Centre for Grothendieckian Studies (CSG), Olivia Caramello, President of the Institute, Mateo Carmona, Archivist of the CSG, and Francesco La Mantia, language philosopher at the University of Palermo.<br>On the occasion of the conference, an exhibition of mathematically inspired works by Dominique Lepetz, a former student of Alexander Grothendieck, will be inaugurated in the presence of the artist.</p><p><a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/Grothendieck" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Grothendieck</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/PhilosophyOfMathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfMathematics</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/ToposTheory" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ToposTheory</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/Mathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Mathematics</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/IHP" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>IHP</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/artnet" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>artnet</span></a></p>
UG Faculty of Philosophy<p><a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/Job" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Job</span></a> alert! Fully funded 4-year <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/PhD" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhD</span></a> position on the <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a> of <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/DataScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>DataScience</span></a> in relation to <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/psychiatry" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>psychiatry</span></a> and <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/psychopathology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>psychopathology</span></a> at the department of <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/TheoreticalPhilosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>TheoreticalPhilosophy</span></a> in <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/Groningen" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Groningen</span></a>.</p><p>All details here: <a href="https://www.rug.nl/about-ug/work-with-us/job-opportunities/?details=00347-02S000BDMP" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">rug.nl/about-ug/work-with-us/j</span><span class="invisible">ob-opportunities/?details=00347-02S000BDMP</span></a></p><p>Deadline: 10 July 2025</p><p><a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/PhDPosition" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhDPosition</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/BigData" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>BigData</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/GetFediHired" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>GetFediHired</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/Academia" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Academia</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://social.edu.nl/tags/Statistics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Statistics</span></a></p>
Scientific Advice Mechanism<p>Helsinki’s 12–13 June 2025 workshop marked the first international Philosophy of Science Advice gathering, hosted by the Finnish Academy and the Scientific Advice Mechanism. Experts debated ethics, legitimacy, stakeholder values, and funding to strengthen scientific advice in democracy. <a href="https://scientificadvice.eu/events/philosophy-of-science-advice-workshop/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">scientificadvice.eu/events/phi</span><span class="invisible">losophy-of-science-advice-workshop/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Science4Policy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Science4Policy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/EthicsInScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>EthicsInScience</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/PolicyMaking" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PolicyMaking</span></a></p>
Frédéric Jaëck<p>Book presentation at IHPST – June 19<br>On June 19 at 11:00 AM, the IHPST will host a presentation of the volume The Mathematical and Philosophical Legacy of Alexander Grothendieck (Birkhäuser, 2025), edited by Marco Panza, Jean-Jacques Szczeciniarz, and Daniele Struppa.<br>Location: IHPST, conference room (13 rue du Four, 75006 Paris, 2nd floor)<br>Programme:<br>– 11:00–11:15 – Marco Panza (IHPST, UMR 8590): General presentation of the volume
– 11:15–11:45 – Olivia Caramello (Università dell’Insubria & Institute Grothendieck): Topoi, from Grothendieck to the present
– 11:45–12:00 – Coffee break
– 12:00–12:45 – Jean-Jacques Szczeciniarz (SPHERE, UMR 7219): Presentation of three contributions:
(i) Tohoku 45 years after
(ii) My view on the experience with Grothendieck’s Anabelian Geometry (by Mohamed Saidi)
(iii) Grothendieck’s use of equality (by Kevin Buzzard)<br>An occasion to revisit Grothendieck’s legacy from both mathematical and philosophical perspectives.<br><a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/Grothendieck" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Grothendieck</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/PhilosophyOfMathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfMathematics</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/HistoryOfMathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HistoryOfMathematics</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/ToposTheory" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ToposTheory</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/AnabelianGeometry" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>AnabelianGeometry</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/Mathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Mathematics</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://fediphilosophy.org/tags/IHPST" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>IHPST</span></a></p>
Androcat<p>Ever get the feeling, when learning about something really complex, that you're trying to reach an understand that it just beyond your grasp?</p><p>It is quite obvious that the human brain, if narrowly focused enough, and given good enough perceptions, could make sense of pretty much any natural or artificial system.</p><p>Not as conscious knowledge, but as instinctual understanding, getting the predictions as gut feelings rather than as analyzable information.</p><p>Visceral, not cerebral.</p><p>In this light, monotropism could be seen to be an evolutionary counterpart to science. A drive to focus on narrow topics, to build intuitive understanding by hooking the brain to the topic directly, at a much lower level than conscious thought.</p><p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/actuallyautistic" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>actuallyautistic</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/philosophy" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>philosophy</span></a></span> </p><p><a href="https://toot.cat/tags/Monotropism" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Monotropism</span></a> <a href="https://toot.cat/tags/Observation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Observation</span></a> <a href="https://toot.cat/tags/science" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>science</span></a> <a href="https://toot.cat/tags/philosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyOfScience</span></a></p>
Jan R. Boehnke<p>Getting ready for @beccajackson.bsky.social 's talk at our School. Activating all the brain cells ☕😅<br><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Cofaidh" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Cofaidh</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Coffee" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Coffee</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Philosophy</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Psychometrics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Psychometrics</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/Measurement" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Measurement</span></a></p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/deck/@jrboehnke/114438433559560514" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">mastodon.social/deck/@jrboehnk</span><span class="invisible">e/114438433559560514</span></a></p>
Strypey<p>Here's one way of expressing Illich and Latour's challenges to modernism, as interpreted by Cayley;</p><p>The Science(TM) is modernism's totalitarian claim of unchallengeable correctness. But the sciences are not so much bodies of certain knowledge, as ways of finding and mapping the limits to what we know, and what can be known. Undermining and eroding any and all systems of totalitarian certainty, in favour of contingent if/then claims.</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/tags/science" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>science</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a></p>
okf<p>Today and tomorrow I am in Potsdam, participating in this symposium on Roman Frigg's book Models and Theories. It should be fun!</p><p><a href="https://sites.google.com/view/romanfriggsymposium" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">sites.google.com/view/romanfri</span><span class="invisible">ggsymposium</span></a></p><p><a href="https://scholar.social/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a> <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a> <a href="https://scholar.social/tags/models" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>models</span></a></p>
SelfAwarePatterns<p><strong>Many-worlds without necessarily many worlds?</strong></p><p>IAI has a brief <a href="https://iai.tv/articles/david-deutsch-there-is-only-one-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-auid-3139?_auid=2020" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">interview of David Deutsch on his advocacy</a> for the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. (Warning: possible paywall.) Deutsch has a history of showing little patience with other interpretations, and this interview is no different. A lot of the discussion centers around his advocacy for scientific realism, the idea that science is actually telling us about the world, rather than just providing instrumental prediction frameworks.</p><p>Quick reminder. The central mystery of quantum mechanics is that quantum systems seem to evolve as waves, superpositions of many states, with the different states interfering with each other, all tracked by a mathematical model called the wave function. But when measured, these systems behave as localized particles, with the model only able to provide probabilities on the measurement result. Although the measurement results as a population show the interference patterns from the wave function. This is often called the “wave function collapse”.</p><p>Various <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">interpretations</a> attempt to make sense of this situation. Many deny the reality of what the wave function models. Others accept it, but posit the wave function collapse as a real objective event. Some posit both a wave and particle existing throughout. The Everett approach rejects wave function collapse and argues that if we just keep following the mathematical model, we get decoherence and eventually the same observations. But that implies that quantum physics apply at all scales, meaning that it’s not just particles in superpositions of many states, but measuring equipment, labs, people, planets, and the entire universe.</p><p>Reading Deutsch’s interview, it occurred to me that my own <a href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/2025/02/15/why-im-an-ontic-structural-realist/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">structural realist</a> outlook, a more cautious take on scientific realism, is reflected in the more cautious acceptance I have of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Everettian quantum mechanics</a>. People like Deutsch are pretty confident that there is a quantum multiverse. I can see the reasoning steps that get them there, and I follow them, to a point. But my own view is that the other worlds remains a possibility, but far from a certainty.</p><p>I think this is because we can break apart the Everettian proposition into three questions.</p><ol><li>Does the mathematical structure of quantum theory provide everything necessary to fit the current data?</li><li>If so, can we be confident that there won’t be new data in the future that drives theorists to make revisions or add additional variables?</li><li>What effect would any additions or changes have on the broader predictions of the current bare theory?</li></ol><p>My answer to 1 is yes, with a moderately high credence, maybe around 80%. I know people like Deutsch and Sean Carroll have this much higher. (I think Carroll says his is around 95% somewhere on his podcast.) And I think they have defendable reasons for it. Experimentalists have been stress testing bare quantum theory for decades, with no sign of a physical wave function collapse, or additional (hidden) variables. Quantum computing seems to have taken it to a new level.</p><p>But there remain doubts, notably about how to explain probabilities. I personally don’t see this as that big an issue. The probabilities reflect the proportion of outcomes in the wave function. But I acknowledge that lot of physicists do. I’m not a physicist, and very aware of the limitations of my very basic understanding of the math, so it’s entirely possible I’m missing something, which is why I’m only at 80%.</p><p>(Often when I make the point about the mathematical structures, it’s noted that there are multiple mathematical formalisms: wave mechanics, matrices, path integrals, etc. But while these are distinct mental frameworks, they reportedly always reconcile. These theories are equivalent, not just empirically, but mathematically. They always provide the same answer. If they didn’t, we’d see experimental physicists trying to test where they diverge. We don’t because there aren’t any divergences.)</p><p>If our answer to 1 is yes, it’s tempting to jump from that to the broader implications, the quantum multiverse. (Or one universe with a much larger ontology. Some people find that a less objectionable description.)</p><p>But then there are questions 2 and 3. I have to say no to 2. The history of science seems to show that any claims that we’ve found the final theory of anything is a dubious proposition, a point Deutsch acknowledges in the interview. All scientific theories are provisional. And we don’t know what we don’t know. And there are the gaps we do know about, such as how to bring gravity into the quantum paradigm. It seems rational to wonder what kind of revisions they may eventually require.</p><p>Of course 3 is difficult to answer until we get there. I do doubt any new discoveries would drive things toward the other interpretations people currently talk about, or overall be less bonkers than the current predictions. Again given the history of science, it seems more likely it would replace the other worlds with something even stranger and more disconcerting.</p><p>So as things stand, there’s no current evidence for adding anything to the structure of raw quantum theory. That does imply other worlds, but the worlds remain untestable for the foreseeable future.</p><p>To be clear, I don’t buy that they’re forever untestable. We can’t rule out that some clever experimentalist in the future won’t find a way to detect interference between decohered branches, to recohere them (which <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15330" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">has been done but only very early in the process</a>), or some other way we haven’t imagined yet.</p><p>My take is the untestability of the other worlds means that Everettian quantum mechanics, in the sense of pure wave mechanics, shouldn’t be accepted because we like the worlds, or rejected because we dislike them. For now, the worlds should be irrelevant for a scientific assessment. The only question is whether anything needs to be added to the bare theory, a question, it should be noted, we can ask regardless of whether we’re being realist or antirealist about any of this.</p><p>All of which means that while my credence in austere quantum mechanics is 80%, the credence for the other worlds vacillates somewhere around 50%. In other words I’m agnostic. This resonates with the views I’ve seen from a number of physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyNMlXN-sw" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Sidney Coleman</a>, <a href="https://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/01/10/a-poll-on-the-foundations-of-quantum-theory/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">John Preskill</a>, and most recently, <a href="https://x.com/ProfBrianCox/status/1909345298071306336" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">Brian Cox</a>, which accept the Everett view but downplay the other worlds. Even Sean Carroll notes in one of his AMAs that he doesn’t really care so much about the other worlds, but the physics at the core of the theory.</p><p>But maybe I’m missing something. Are the questions I raised above as easy to separate as I’m thinking? Or are there problems with pure wave mechanics I’m overlooking?</p><p><a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/" target="_blank">#InterpretationsOfQuantumMechanics</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/many-worlds-interpretation/" target="_blank">#ManyWorldsInterpretation</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/philosophy/" target="_blank">#Philosophy</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/philosophy-of-science/" target="_blank">#PhilosophyOfScience</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/quantum-mechanics/" target="_blank">#QuantumMechanics</a> <a rel="nofollow noopener" class="hashtag u-tag u-category" href="https://selfawarepatterns.com/tag/science/" target="_blank">#Science</a></p>
david jon furbish<p>"The "Correlation" Between Statistics and Eugenics" (2024) 2/2<br><a href="https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-correlation-between-statistics-and-eugenics/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">lareviewofbooks.org/article/th</span><span class="invisible">e-correlation-between-statistics-and-eugenics/</span></a> </p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/statistics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>statistics</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a> <br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/mathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>mathematics</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/appliedmathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>appliedmathematics</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/eugenics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>eugenics</span></a><br><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/philosophy" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>philosophy@a.gup.pe</span></a></span> <br><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://newsmast.community/@philosophy" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>philosophy@newsmast.community</span></a></span></p>
david jon furbish<p>I cannot think of an applied mathematics that is more beautiful and far-reaching, or philosophically wilder, than probability. No, nonlinear dynamics and chaos people, it’s not even close 🤣</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/probability" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>probability</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/mathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>mathematics</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/appliedmathematics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>appliedmathematics</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/philosophy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophy</span></a><br><a href="https://mastodon.online/tags/philosophyofscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>philosophyofscience</span></a> <br><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://newsmast.community/@philosophy" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>philosophy@newsmast.community</span></a></span> <br><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/philosophy" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>philosophy@a.gup.pe</span></a></span></p>
TrendingLive feeds
Mastodon is the best way to keep up with what's happening.
Follow anyone across the fediverse and see it all in chronological order. No algorithms, ads, or clickbait in sight.
Create accountLoginDrag & drop to upload