how fucked up would nature be if the bulk (emergent/macroscopic) properties of matter weren’t related to the properties of their microscopic constituents
-
not that there's *no* relation, i think the relevant counterfactual is what if there's *something* that's not uniquely determined
i think uniqueness of a macroscopic determination of a microscopic theory is the relevant vocabulary to be used here
-
-
this gets cashed out in two ways, one of which is thought to be more problematic: underdetermination and a failure of determinism. In the former case a wide variety of underlying micro configurations can realize the same macroscopic configuration. We see this all the time
-
Failures of determinism seem to be a bigger threat to a lot of the philosophical commitments that physicists tend to have, unlike underdetermination
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps of interest to you boys would be Einstein's arguments separate to the EPR paper.There was incompleteness as defined by EPR, then (bijective) incompletness defined by Einstein which was concerned with seperatability of two different macroscopic systems.The fundamental prob
-
I think we need to sort out what truly constitutes a Unitary action as opposed to a measurement and of course ideally do away with the strange fact that realist objects need intervention in order to be considered real in the local realism sense. (Re: bell inequality experiments).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.