Phil. Of Quantum Mechanics

Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2

Anonymous
Phil. Of Quantum Mechanics 2016-07-25 03:49:31 Post No. 1458591
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: 88.jpg (699KB, 1936x1296px) Image search: [Google]

699KB, 1936x1296px

Phil. Of Quantum Mechanics Anonymous 2016-07-25 03:49:31 Post No. 1458591 [Report]

I recently read a brief essay on the subject that,
for the most part, many see contemporary philosophy as having stumbled behind the progress of science
(which I think is fair in the case of scientists and the layman).

Thereafter I took to learning more about current Quantum Mechanics,
which created a mix of horror and intense interest in relation to the Microcosm-Macrocosm-esque implications.

While I am not quite as up to date as some (I don't have subscriptions to journals, or have access to paywall-protected essays),
it does seem apparent that there isn't much corpus attempting to reconcile this conception, or at least that it remains obscure.

This all said, and while I understand people have been saying to avoid the philosophical questions/implications until after the theory has been more polished,
I imagine there must be at least a handful of articles.
Would anyone know some good sources on the topic?

Anonymous 2016-07-25 03:54:16 Post No.1458605
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-25 03:54:16 Post No.1458605 [Report]

>>1458591
>Microcosm-Macrocosm-esque implications

Such as?

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:00:43 Post No.1458623
[Report] Image search: [Google]

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:00:43 Post No.1458623 [Report]

File: image.png (186KB, 463x515px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 463x515px

>>1458591
>I recently read a brief essay...
>Would anyone know some good sources on the topic?

You obviously started with what you think is a good source. Cite your source please, so that we may have the benefits of its wisdom

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:02:23 Post No.1458629
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:02:23 Post No.1458629 [Report]

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy should be your first stop for any philosophical topic. They prevent an overview of different opinions, main thinkers and essays/books on the topic, and a historical sketch of its development.

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:05:33 Post No.1458640
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:05:33 Post No.1458640 [Report]

>>1458591
Trying to study QM without years of university level math is a futile endeavor. Trust me, there is nothing they can say to you in English that will help you truly understand the concepts until you understand the math behind it.

I read a lot of popular QM and physics books before I switched majors to physics and everything I thought I knew was basically dead wrong.

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:08:05 Post No.1458644
[Report]

Anonymous 2016-07-25 04:08:05 Post No.1458644 [Report]

>>1458640
Pretty much this. Unless you are fluent in the math of QM the best you are not really capable of having an opinion on what it means.

This is actually half the reason there is so much bullshit woo around QM, because only math autists can understand it and math autists generally make poor philosophers

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible. Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/