Fairly long review of "Lost in Math" by a philosopher of science, Jeremy Butterfield. It's an interesting read & will give you a good impression what my book is about. Pls be warned that in some places he misrepresents my argument. More on my blog later. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15724/1/HossenfReview2feb19.pdf …
This, I would argue, is the key point: I want particularly to stress that this logic is mandated not by QM, but by observation. Its validity in its domain of application is unambiguously affirmed not indirectly, via the successes of QM, but directly, by the phenomena themselves.
-
-
I cannot emphasize this strongly enough: we observe directly phenomena in the microworld that are irreconcilable with the most primitive assumptions of GR. It's not the overwhelming empirical success of QM that obliges us to accept a non-classical logic. It's direct observation.
-
I have long been profoundly grateful to the late great Itamar Pitowsky for making this point exquisitely clear to me at last, and I wish his brilliant expositions of the essential ideas here were vastly better known. In particular, I strongly recommend:http://bit.ly/2GCzU31
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.