Are there any arguments for it?
I haven’t heard any arguments against logic by the developments of quantum physics per se, but I think what you’re talking about is closer to arguments by quantum physics against causality.
That’s an interesting one.
Quantum physics renders a lot of things useless
maybe even.. itself?
I think it does bring up some issues with “cant be A and not A simultaneously” as well. At least in respect to particle-wave duality and Schroedinger’s cat, it does.
Part of the problem with Quantum Mechanics is you have non-philosophers (scientists) doing philosophy. I can’t count the number of times I’ve sat down to read a piece by a leading physicist (quantum or otherwise) and just shaken my head at the number of philosophical gaffes they can commit in a single paragraph.
Modern scientists are way too sure of themselves. The metaphysical foundations on which modern science rests are far shakier than most people realize. Take cosmology, for example. Today, everyone believes the universe is finite in extent, both in time and space. This is taken to be settled fact by all but a very tiny, crank minority. But there’s really no sure way to tell a finite universe apart from an infinite one. And, if I had to chose between finite and infinite extent with no other information available to me, I’d choose infinite since it is simpler than finite. A finite universe has some extent… and specifying that extent requires more information than an infinite universe for which the question “how big?” or “how old?” simply has no defined answer.
But there’s also an argument for a finite universe which also comes from the nature of information. You can encode every possible pattern into a single, random, real number. If the universe is infinite in extent, then it could (would?) contain every possible universe as sub-universes within it. But talking about such universes is absurd, it’s an “easy out” from having to discuss any issue of substance. A finite universe, however, can only contain finitely much information and would, therefore, have a particular nature (such as a specific set of “laws”).
Such issues are purely metaphysical. The red shift of galaxies is a data-point but it’s not necessarily the case that the universe is finitely old simply because it appears to be expanding today.
I think way too much is made of quantum logic. Classical logic presupposes some kind of a discriminator that can distinguish this from that. The human brain can very reliably distinguish spoken symbols or symbols written on a piece of paper so the rules of classical logic apply to any system which can be fully described in natural language. But in quantum mechanics, we are dealing with objects that are at the limits of the resolution of the universe, that is, you cannot always tell this from that at the quantum level. When you cannot reliably tell this from that, the rules of formal systems change. Logic is a formal system, so its rules are different when you cannot tell this from that. To suggest that classical logic no longer applies is simply an indication of ignorance of the nature of classical logic, quantum logic and the relationship between the two.
Clayton -
So from what I gather, you’re saying that just because we cannot discriminate between things at the quantum level, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a time where, due to better knowledge of it, we can discriminate and thereby apply classical logic?
What specifically would you say to someone who thought that quantum mechanics refutes the law of non-contradiction or how would you extricate classical logic from this objection?
Being unable to measure some things is not a limit of our technology, it’s a physical impossibility. Just developing better instruments that can read the configurations directly is about as likely as making a perpetual motion machine.
Furthermore, it is important to understand that logic is a formalism. It’s not so much of a data point as it is a perspective. Similarly, division by 0 is undefined over a field, but it is defined over a wheel. The latter doesn’t “refute” the former. Plus, that classical logic is inadequate for describing some things is not something quantum physics discovered. The deficiencies have been known for a long time.
So, you assume that each quantum state is equally probable. You throw the assumption that particles move continuously out the window, and just assume that everything is random. Then you integrate across all possible quantum states, and get an average.
QP is a construct. Its very useful for the same reasons that the second “law” of thermodynamics holds. It doesn’t invalidate anything. Simply because the world can be modeled by assuming some aspects of it are random does not mean it is random.
I can predict that a million dice rolls with average to be 3.5 by assuming that the dice rolled is random. But if I can see how each dice is thrown and model its dynamics, I would be able to arrive at the same answer. Its just computationally stupid.
Not quite. There are, in fact, fundamental limits to the structure of the universe beyond which no one and nothing can discriminate, given any amount of knowledge.
Easy. If quantum mechanics refutes the LNC it also, provably, does not refute it. 
Clayton -
So thanks for the responses, my understanding of the issue now is analogously, classical logic is to quantum logic as euclidean geo. is to non-euclidean geo.?
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
No. Newtonian physics is to relativistic physics as Euclidean geometry is to non-Euclidean geometry. I can’t think of a good mathematical analogy for the relationship between classical logic and quantum logic.
Clayton -
There is so much to say on the matter. But I will state that there are no factors in quantum mechanics that renders logic useless. I utilize quantum mechanics on a daily basis to study matter. It is a complete understanding of what the universe entails in the realm of atomic and molecular behavior. The problem lies in that there exist too many layman or pop science books on the matter that over simplify the structure of quantum theory and over step its boundaries.
Quantum mechanics exist at varying levels (Each level dealing with 3 out of 4 forces of nature. Furthermore each level dives into a deeper realm of the universe where nature, herself, becomes more abstract):
1.) Non-relavistic QM’s (hard matter like protons, electrons, neutrons, the nucleus, … )
2.) Relavistic QM (incorporates the Dirac equation) or Quantum Field Theory. Quantum Electrodynamics exist at this realm. This is quantum mechanics dealing with electromagnetism and essentially light.
3.) Quantum Electroweak Theory which deals with weak the nuclear force.
4.) Quantum Chronodynamics deals with the strong nuclear force. This is dealing with some of the smallest compenents of the universe.
1 and 2 are the most well understood. ALL THE PREDICTIONS THAT QUANTUM MECHANICS STATES AT THIS LEVEL HAVE NEVER BEEN WRONG. THEY ARE COMPLETE SETS OF LAWS THAT ENCOMPASS THE UNIVERSE AT THIS REALM. 1 and 2 can be easily tested in the lab and are within the realm of technology within the last 50 years. 3 and 4 are well understood also. However, not all of the predictions made by Quantum Chronodynamics have been verified because it takes large experimental devices like The Large Hadron Collider, Stanford Linear Particle Accelerator, and other complicated, large, and costly machinery to produce the energies needed to probe this deep into the universe. So far, the predictions made by 3 and 4 have passed every test, and have made strange predictions of the universe that includes very exotic forms of matter that have not existed since the big bang. It’s in 3 and 4 that a lot of work is being done.
However, the problem dealing with all the quantum theories is not in their ability to predict nature, or its theoretical framework but its interpretation. Nothing more. Quantum mechanics is essentially a very complicated and obscure theory that deals with very, very advanced mathematics (here is where part of the dilemma lies). Quantum behavior is difficult to explain to non practitioners because quantum mechanics deals with a framework of complicated mathematical structure that describes abstract experimental observations. You can’t explain easily to anyone what hermatian operators, path integration, wavefunctions, residue theorem, field theories, spooky actions at a distant, … ect. mean. In addition, quantum mechanical processes entails microscopic dynamics that don’t have analogous macroscopic counterparts. While the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics is not in debate amongst scientist, its interpretation strongly is. This has divided the physics and chemistry community heavily. On one side we have “the shut up and calculate community” that could care less on the philosophical implications of quantum theory. This school of thought knows it works in lab, and that’s all that matters to the experimentalist. Then we have the philosophers that ponder on the meaning of what quantum theory means. This is where you see the emergence of pop science. So the question arises… does quantum mechanics deserve an interpretation like Einstein’s General Relativity, and all other physical theories? Yes, it does. Deeply! But no one has been able to make an interpretation that satisfies its unique framework. Gravity was not well understood until Einstein used very esoteric fields of mathematics to describe gravity not as a force but a topological entity where space and time are one of the same. It was then that physicist and astronomers came to understand the global nature of gravity, and Einstein’s theories could be further developed. So far, his theories have explained the cosmos beautifully.
You can’t apply formal logic to quantum mechanics because the universe, at this point, behaves in a manner that is far to alien for everyday logic. The universe behaves in manner that is different at the microscopic realm. You can only apply quantum logic to quantum systems which is essentially equations. These equations are always correct. I and thousands of other practitioners use QM everyday to calculate atomic and molecular behavior with astonishing accuracy.
The question that is most asked in the classroom about quantum mechanics is its probabilistic nature. Even that aspect of quantum mechanics is difficult to explain because it deals with probability intertwined with wavefunctions. Thus, it’s not the same probability structure that you and I are familiar with. The wavefunction itself is difficult to explain because of the nature and meaning of the wavefunction itself. When people ask me about quantum mechanical processes such as tunneling, they ask, “Is that real? Does that really happen. It sound too absurd”. My reply is that it’s real, but you don’t have a complete picture of what it entails. It’s something that only happens in the quantum realm. The same can be said about all other quantum mechanical processes.
The most important factor to consider that pertains to the OP’s question is the following. While quantum mechanics is obscure from our point of view, and it does defy macroscopic logic, it in no way discredits it. You use macroscopic logic at the macroscopic realm and quantum laws at the quantum realm. Matter of fact, quantum mechanics is very necessary to explain macroscopic nature, like the ultraviolet catastrophe. Quantum mechanics rules and laws are only prevalent in the world of subatomic particles, atoms, and molecules. These seemingly strange rules of quantum mechanics begin to cancel each other out as you emerge out of the world of the very small to the world of the large. What you have left is the world that you and I are familiar with. Even more fascinating is the same equations that govern quantum theory, when taken to their limits to ever increasing size, transform to the equations of Newtonian mechanics.
Thus, to say that quantum mechanics renders logic useless is wrong. Quantum mechanics only pertains to the world of the small.
quantum mechanics is unfalsifiable
Nonsense. QM arises from the simple observation of quantized energy. I performed a simple experiment in physics class, where we used a prism and an ionized gas light filled with gas of a specific element (I can’t remember the elements we analyzed at the moment). When a beam of white light is shined through a prism, the light beam is split into its frequency components (spectrum), creating the familiar rainbow. But when you shine light created by excitation and ionization of a single element through a prism, you see something different… you see discrete color bands separated by dark regions, this is called the atomic spectrum or emission spectrum of the element. If QM were false, we would expect to see a smooth band of colors as photons leaving the orbital shells of electrons would be leaving at random energy (frequency). Instead, we see discrete spectra whose frequency bands precisely correspond to all the combinations of potential energies between the orbital shells within the atom. Photons always leave the atom at exactly and only those energies, no more, no less. Energy is quantized, that is, energy exists only as discrete quanta.
Clayton -
“You can’t apply formal logic to quantum mechanics because the universe, at this point, behaves in a manner that is far to alien for everyday logic.”
That means your theory of the universe is false.
“The universe behaves in manner that is different at the microscopic realm.”
If I combine enough microscopic things, I get something macroscopic. The model of the macroscopic thing should be consistent with the model of the microscopic things. If there is something fundamentally different about the microscopic and the macroscopic, tell me the smallest thing that is considered macroscopic and the largest thing that is considered microscopic.
“You can only apply quantum logic to quantum systems which is essentially equations.”
So what’s a quantum system? “Something small enough for quantum logic to apply.” Sounds pretty circular. So if my observation contradicts “quantum logic”, then it’s because I wasn’t dealing with a quantum system?
“Even more fascinating is the same equations that govern quantum theory, when taken to their limits to ever increasing size, transform to the equations of Newtonian mechanics.”
That means everything is a “quantum system”.
Nonfederal Reserve you’re not using physical intuition to understand the problem. If microscopic systems didn’t exist under the set of laws governed by quantum mechanics then you wouldn’t have the emergence of solid state technology (televisions, circuit boards, electronics), synthetic drugs (drugs are molecules and are governed by quantum theory), nuclear technology (which is essentially all quantum theory), and countless other technologies you see in the market.
The quantum world exist under a different set of laws than Newtonian laws at the quantum level. You can’t debate that. That issue was resolved in the early 20th century. Quantum Mechanics is a mainstream in science. It’s an issue not even up for debate. You can’t use macroscopic laws to decipher microscopic systems. This was the great leap made by early 20th century scientist. They had to abandon the notion that the universe is governed by one set of laws. It is not.
You’re using philosophical logic that can’t be applied to physical systems. Philosophic logic fails in determining physical systems dealing with matter and energy. That is why we have physics. Physicist attempted to apply classical mechanics (the laws of the macroscopic world) to understand how atoms and molecules behaved, and failed horribly. New laws needed to be discovered based on observation.
I will give you a simple example using your logic. An electron orbits the atom. They both have mass. Matter of fact, the electron and nucleus have opposite charges, and opposite charges attract.Thus, the electron is attracted to the nucleus via gravity and electromagnetically. Thus, according to your logic, the equations that govern matter at the macroscopic level, mainly the gravitional force and electro potential force, the electron should spiral into the atom in a matter of a millionth of second. That would lead to all atoms in the universe collapsing to singular point. At that point, atoms wouldn’t exist, and thus molecules wouldn’t exist, and the universe wouldn’t exist in the complexity that it exist today.
The example above was just one of many problems that physicist were battling in the begining of the 20th century. After a great deal of experimentation a solution was found by Erwin Schrodinger and many other scientist. His equation was baffling because it described the microscopic universe in a strange manner. However, IT GAVE THE PREDICTED SOLUTIONS TO A PLETHORA OF ANOMALIES THAT WERE OBSERVED WITH EXPERIMENTATION. The Schrodinger equation along with other quantum mechanical equations finally lead to the understanding of the atom. His equation is not even up for debate. It works and never fails. Soon after, scientist learned how to use the laws of quantum mechanics and applied it to technology. This is where the biggest leap in technology came from.
You can’t use philosophy to predict how matter and energy will behave. You have to apply the scientific method, and come up with a hypothesis to attempt to describe what is being observed. Then you test, and test some more. You test to the point where every conceivable test that can disprove a theory simply can’t. Then it becomes a law, and quantum mechanics is a law.
The emergence of new laws dictating how the universe behaves at different levels is not new. As you progress to the cosmological stage, new laws of physics come into play. Namely, Einstein’s law of general relativity. Matter of fact, there exist another realm between the quantum level and the macro level called statistical mechanics that plays by it’s own rules.
I can give countless examples of how Newtonian physics fails. Philosophical logic does not govern the universe and can’t be used to understand it.
“If microscopic systems didn’t exist under the set of laws governed by quantum mechanics then you wouldn’t have the emergence of solid state technology (televisions, circuit boards, electronics), synthetic drugs (drugs are molecules and are governed by quantum theory), nuclear technology (which is essentially all quantum theory), and countless other technologies you see in the market.”
If supernatural forces didn’t exist under the laws governed by God then you wouldn’t have the emergence of life and other miracles you see in creation. Therefore, God exists.
“Thus, according to your logic, the equations that govern matter at the macroscopic level, mainly the gravitional force and electro potential force, the electron should spiral into the atom in a matter of a millionth of second. That would lead to all atoms in the universe collapsing to singular point.”
Your logic, not mine. Earth orbits the sun even though each attracts the other. The universe is expanding and not collapsing into a singularity even though all matter attracts all other matter through the gravitational force.
“His equation is not even up for debate.”
Science is always up for debate.
Is it possible that there is some talking past each other here? it seems like some times people are talking about causal forces of nature i.e. ‘physical law’s’ and others they are talking of laws of thought i.e. logic, and then there seem to be moments of equivocation… am I way off?
Its quite a common issue because ‘logic’ is a word put to many purposes in the english language. people talk of the ‘logic of chess’ or ‘computer logic’ etc.
Nonfederal Reserve,
“If supernatural forces didn’t exist under the laws governed by God then you wouldn’t have the emergence of life and other miracles you see in creation. Therefore, God exists.”
We’re not discussing the issue of supernatural forces here. The fact is that many technologies exist; a great deal of the dynamics of natural universe (stars, nuetron stars, the cosmic expansion) exist because of the laws of quantum mechanics. If you do believe in God, these varying laws exist because he created the universe as is. Not out of pure thought or logic.
“Your logic, not mine. Earth orbits the sun even though each attracts the other. The universe is expanding and not collapsing into a singularity even though all matter attracts all other matter through the gravitational force.”
First and foremost, you’re questioning physical intuition sir. Not philosophy. You can’t argue against physical LAWS. It’s not my logic. It’s the logic of the greatest minds of science, sir. Frankly, I’m not that smart. To answer you’re rebuttal… the earth is not attracted to the Sun via electromagnetics, the earth has angular momentum, I’m sure if you look that up you will understand why the gravitational force is not causing Earth to collapse into the sun. If you wish to bring up planetary orbits as a rebuttal see the perihelion orbit of Mercury orbiting the sun. You will see how new laws come into play with the orbit of Mercury around the sun that doesn’t deal with the macroscopic realm of Newtonian physics. Furthermore, if you believe in the cosmic expansion, then you believe in laws (the laws of general relativity and quantum theory{specifically the Casimir Effect) that don’t deal with the macroscopic laws. Cosmic expansion deals with laws of physics that go beyond the macroscopic laws. See the following on the perihelion dealing with Mercury:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
“Science is always up for debate.”
Yes, you are correct, many factors in science are always debate. Laws are not. Rarely are they up for debate (and I do mean rarely through the eyes of history), and when they are it deals ONLY with reformulation. Nothing more. Quantum Mechanics is not up for debate. It’s already proven itself as a set of laws that are self consistent. I will further add that science does not have a great number of laws. Just a few but, so far, they are unshakable.
Nonfederal Reserve, from your responses, you have not addressed any of the counter points dealing with the laws of quantum theory.
NirgrahamUK is completely right. I’m debating that physical laws do not equate or can’t be put on the same setting as the laws of thought or philosophy. This was the OP’s original question. The OP was asking whether the obscure rules of quantum mechanics that goes against physical intution, applies to thought. Which it does not. That was the point that was being made. The laws of philosophical thought DO NOT EQUATE to physical laws. You can’t formulate any law of the universe simply by thinking on a thought process. Physical laws are constructed by observation.