So, according to my understanding, the term "Schrodinger's Class" refers to a theoretical spell-casting class that is capable of having any number of different feats/spells/skills/features and so on and so forth. It is often used in attempts to prove superiority among different classes. It'll always have what it needs to have and can't be refuted because it's incapable of being observed. If one was to ever actually be observed, the infinite possibilities of its design would instantly coalesce into a build and it would no longer be theoretical.
If that is a correct understanding, I have just one question:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because few people know about Werner Heisenberg and even fewer know about his uncertainty principle. Schrodinger has suffused popular culture more broadly.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOT EVERYONE AM ABLE TO HAVE ENGINEERING DEGREE LIKE BARBARIAN.
VERNACULAR AM BECOME WHAT IT AM BECAUSE PEOPLE AM NOT KNOW UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.
BARBARIAN FEEL BAD FOR CASTY SHORTCOMINGS. BUT ONLY FOR MOMENT. THEN BACK TO SMASHING.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I understand Schrodinger's Cat correctly, Schrodinger was not trying to prove that the cat could exist (or not exist) in all states at once, as the popular misinterpretation would have you believe. On the contrary, both he and Einstein thought it was ridiculous.
The thought experiment was dreamed up to point out the flaws in another quantum physics theorem, which, if it were so, would mean the cat could exist in such a state, to coalesce only when it was viewed by an observer.
So, to call a class Schrodinger's Class would be to identify it as total hogwash. The illogical outcome of a fallacious argument.
At any rate, if any class, spellcasting or otherwise, could gain any feat, spell or ability it wanted, anytime it wanted, it would of course overpower every other class, "proving" that the other classes were inferior. But that's like saying you could prove a god is more powerful than an ant. It doesn't really prove anything. It's just more mental masturbation.
Schrodinger's cat, in my understanding, is a satire of the odd behavior of electrons writ large. Since an electron can apparently be in two places at once, and when measured will adhere to one of those locations randomly, he thought why can't a cat in a box with a bottle of poison be both alive and dead at the same time, fully assuming one state or the other only upon observation?
Most, if not all, of quantum physics seems more like philosophy than science. But then, take a look at noetics, which goes even further than quantum physics. Noetics says that not only does the electron assume one of the two locations on observation, but with practice the observer can direct the outcome with his or her mind.
That said, I humbly present the thought experiment Hudax's cat. It's exactly like Schrodinger's cat, but the twist is, will the cat to be in one state or the other before observation.
Please don't kill my cat. :(
Those are some fair points. And Bruunwald, yeah I read Cracked too. : P
Yeah, I knew that Schrodinger came up with it to show how silly Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was, so I knew they were related. I simply thought that Schrodinger's experiment was too specific to be as good an analogy for the Class that now has his name. Ah well. I hadn't seen any discussion of its name on the boards so I thought it'd be fun.
Most, if not all, of quantum physics seems more like philosophy than science. But then, take a look at noetics, which goes even further than quantum physics. Noetics says that not only does the electron assume one of the two locations on observation, but with practice the observer can direct the outcome with his or her mind.
What am I reading?!?
Quantum mechanics is more philosophy than science?!?
Pretty much all modern technology is based on understanding quantum physics. Computers, chemistry, materials science, solar-based power generation, nuclear power, nanotechnology, and countless other areas of science and engineering are fundamentally linked to quantum physics.
If it wasn't for our understanding of energy levels in semiconductors you wouldn't even be able to post your ignorant comment.
Since you're the second person to fail to understand what I wrote, I'll write it again:
Most, if not all, of quantum physics seems more like philosophy than science.
Likewise, I strongly believe that everyone should be required to study and be able to identify the philosophical foundations on which science is based.
Philosophy is useless. It hasn't contributed anything to society since it cranked out science, and science was basically a way of saying "you know what, trying to philosophize our way to an answer just flat out isn't working, lets TEST this junk we're coming up with"
Since you're the second person to fail to understand what I wrote, I'll write it again:
Most, if not all, of quantum physics seems more like philosophy than science.
The fact that you bolded "seems" does not make your opinion any less ignorant.
I think you fail to understand what you are saying.
What annoys the hell out of me is how some people think the only things worth value come from science.
While it is unfortunate that some people think that way (not my opinion at all), I don't think anyone in this thread has stated such a thing.
If you tell a mathematician that "most of mathematics seems more like social science" then he/she would be baffled.
Likewise, if you a painter that "most of art seems like neuroscience" then he/she would be likewise confused.
Mathematics is used in social sciences, and the visual cortex is studied in Neuroscience. But classifying math as a branch of social science and painting as a branch of neuroscience is absurd.
The fact that you bolded "seems" does not make your opinion any less ignorant.
Yes. It does. It means that on the surface it looks like some wierd zen Buddhist walking contradiction: and when you're talking about living dead cats he has a point. He realizes that its not once you look into it, but it does in fact give that appearance
Dor
What am I reading?!?Quantum mechanics is more philosophy than science?!?
Pretty much all modern technology is based on understanding quantum physics. Computers, chemistry, materials science, solar-based power generation, nuclear power, nanotechnology, and countless other areas of science and engineering are fundamentally linked to quantum physics.
If it wasn't for our understanding of energy levels in semiconductors you wouldn't even be able to post your ignorant comment.
You seems to misunderstand what philosophy is. Go read Frege or Russell and try to keep in mind that if not for their philosophical research, you would not be able to post your ignorant comment.
Physics and Philosophy have been walking hand in hand for more than 2000 years, and a lot of physics's results originated in philosophy and logic. Please stop being so chauvinist, and before jumping in philosophy's face, read some.
Getting heated.
Perhaps it deserves and off topic thread?
Likewise, I strongly believe that everyone should be required to study and be able to identify the philosophical foundations on which science is based.
Philosophy is useless. It hasn't contributed anything to society since it cranked out science, and science was basically a way of saying "you know what, trying to philosophize our way to an answer just flat out isn't working, lets TEST this junk we're coming up with"
Oh man! Please, this is so ridiculous. Would you say the same about mathematics? You know, because there is no empirical TEST to proove a equation is right....
Scientism and positivism has been dead for a century. Get over it!
You seems to misunderstand what philosophy is. Go read Frege or Russell and try to keep in mind that if not for their philosophical research, you would not be able to post your ignorant comment.
Physics and Philosophy have been walking hand in hand for more than 2000 years, and a lot of physics's results originated in philosophy and logic. Please stop being so chauvinist, and before jumping in philosophy's face, read some.
I didn't say that philosophy is useless.
I was baffled that he said that "quantum physics is more philosophy than science." This is clearly incorrect.
It's like saying "painting is more neuroscience than art." Both painting and neuroscience have an interest in the visual cortex, but classifying painting as neuroscience is absurd.
I am well aware that science and philosophy have been related throughout human history.
The fact of the matter is that philosophy and science are now clearly distinct, though related fields.
Similarly, partial differential equations sprung out of physics, but saying "PDE's are more physics than mathematics" is crazy.
I was baffled that he said that "quantum physics is more philosophy than science." This is clearly incorrect.
It's also not what I said.
For the record, even though posternutbag thought he was disagreeing with me, spelled out precisely what I meant:
I must respectfully disagree with Hudax that particle-wave theory is more like philosophy than science. I would more closely liken it to a tool box, except this tool box is composed of PDEs, linear algebra (matrices) and formal analysis. It is, IMHO, the greatest tool box ever assembled because it allows us to describe and predict, with exacting certainty and incredible precision, phenomenon that we cannot begin to describe with natural language. This is the inherent problem with "quantum mechanics." Neither I, nor, I would dare say, anyone else in the entire world, can adequately address the subject devoid of the mathematics, to the point that I do not even try.
I didn't say that philosophy is useless.I was baffled that he said that "quantum physics is more philosophy than science." This is clearly incorrect.
It's like saying "painting is more neuroscience than art." Both painting and neuroscience have an interest in the visual cortex, but classifying painting as neuroscience is absurd.
I am well aware that science and philosophy have been related throughout human history.
The fact of the matter is that philosophy and science are now clearly distinct, though related fields.
Similarly, partial differential equations sprung out of physics, but saying "PDE's are more physics than mathematics" is crazy.
Just think about this: Owning a PhD in physics means owning a Philosophy Doctorate in Physics.
Yes, it seems to be more philosophy than physics, because IT IS. As soon as you are trying to interpret a scientific result, find that there is more than one coherent explanation, (there is currently four debated interpretations to the uncertainty principle) and argue solely based on coherence and without being able to devise a empirical test to choose between those interpretations, you are doing philosophy of physics and not physics anymore.
That is exactly what philosophy IS - choosing between different interpretations of reality by examining the internal logical coherence of those interpretations when you are inable to devise a test.
I don't think its getting heated. I'm glad that someone (CunningMongoose) who appears to be actually knowledgable in philosophy is posting to clear up a lot of wrong stuff others have posted.
All I've seen him do so far is ad hom people who disagree with him.
Just think about this: Owning a PhD in physics means owning a Philosophy Doctorate in Physics.
Yes, it seems to be more philosophy than physics, because IT IS. As soon as you are trying to interpret a scientific result, find that there is more than one coherent explanation, (there is currently four debated interpretations to the uncertainty principle) and argue solely based on coherence and without being able to devise a empirical test to choose between those interpretations, you are doing philosophy of physics and not physics anymore.
That is exactly what philosophy IS - choosing between different interpretations of reality by examining the internal logical coherence of those interpretations when you are inable to devise a test.
I think you are trying to be too broad in your definition of philosophy. Just because the intersection of two sets is non-empty does not imply one is a subset of the other.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interdisciplinary field tied to philosophy. Quantum mechanics itself is not philosophy.
If you try to group everything under the category of philosophy, then your definition is not very useful.
Should software engineering be philosophy? Should painting be philosophy? What isn't philosophy?
Should software engineering be philosophy?
Yes, absolutely.
That is exactly what philosophy IS - choosing between different interpretations of reality by examining the internal logical coherence of those interpretations when you are inable to devise a test.
In other words, when the scientific method fails to nail down one truth, dialectics (the action of philosophy) must take over. Is that what you mean?
All I've seen him do so far is ad hom people who disagree with him.
Yeah, sure. That's what I did.
I think you are trying to be too broad in your definition of philosophy. Just because the intersection of two sets is non-empty does not imply one is a subset of the other.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics is an interdisciplinary field tied to philosophy. Quantum mechanics itself is not philosophy.If you try to group everything under the category of philosophy, then your definition is not very useful.
Should software engineering be philosophy? Should painting be philosophy? What isn't philosophy?
I never said physics was a subset of philosophy. I agree it's more of an intersection between two sets. But this intersection is by definition neither owned by physics, nor by philosophy, that is why I talked about philosophy of physics (or theoritical physics, if you want.)
When I said it was philosophy, that did not imply it was not physics anymore.
Also note you said that 1) philosophy and physics were clearly distinct, but related fields and that 2) they were intersecting sets.
I fail to see how propositions 1 and 2 two could be true at the same time, and maybe that is why you misunderstood me. They are far lest distinct you seems to believe in 1, for the exact reason you yourself give in 2.
I would also say there are some parts of software engineering that are also part of philosophy: mainly information theory, game theory, semantics and proof theory, mereology and set theory (and logic in general), connectionism theory and probably a lot I don't know about because it's not the precise field I'm working in. But a good place to start would be here : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/
As for painting, I really don't know. Philosophical aesthetics is not by cup of tea. I know some people work in that field, but the relation to what they do the the practice of painting eludes me.
In other words, when the scientific method fails to nail down one truth, dialectics (the action of philosophy) must take over. Is that what you mean?
Dialectics, I think, would be insufficent without analysis : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back to Schrodinger's cat:
The answer is obvious: the cat is a zombie.
Sorry CunningMongoose, you can try to wiggle out of this as you want, but it still makes your statement
quantum physics is more philosophy than science
incorrect.
Quantum Physics gives very definite results about many phenomenoms observed in nature (CERN for instance). Very much what Physics is all about and Philosophy is not.
However there are some outgrows from Quantum physics (like string theory) that can not be observed in nature and thus can not be really proven true or false except on a mathematical basis.
You could say that these are more Philosophy than Physics, even though I don't know any Philosophy that is that mathematical...
But saying Quantum Physics as a whole is more Philosophy than Physics overshoots it by far.
--------------------------
To Schrödinger:
It is the fate of this great Scientist that the work of his life is illustrated by a very bad example, namely that of a cat in a box.
This example is about as correct as stating "fission is like cutting apples in half".
Anyone judging Schrödingers work by this example should educate himself a little bit before stating that this isn't proper Science but rather Philosophy.
-------------------------
To a Schrödinger class in Pathfinder:
What should that be? Which of Schrödinger mathematical equations that helped to form Quantum Physics as we know it today (or could know it if we made some effort) has an application that is even remotely tied to a class in a roleplaying game?
I thought everyone would know about Heisenberg.
You can know if the optimized wizard exists or if he is the best class around but you can't know both at the same time.
It derives not from Schrodinger's work in quantum theory, but from the Cat fallacy that is all most folks know about the man. It refers to a class (usually a caster who prepares spells) that one poster holds to be very superior to all other classes on the fallacious assumption that any time a challenge comes up in the game, the 'Schrodinger's class' will always have the correct spell (or other class feature) prepared. Just as the cat supposedly is [alive, dead], the class in question is assumed to have [all spells on spell-list] in memory, [all class feature options] as class features, and so forth. Like the Cat, once you actually get that character into a game ('look into the box'), those unrealistic sets collapse. It's a shorthand, indirect way to jab at folks who try to settle "which class is better" arguments by overlooking the opportunity costs of the class they love.To a Schrödinger class in Pathfinder:
What should that be? Which of Schrödinger's mathematical equations... has an application that is even remotely tied to a class in a roleplaying game?
Good posts by yourself and others. Great thread!
Yes, absolutely.
Should software engineering be philosophy?
Isn't it not already?
It derives not from Schrodinger's work in quantum theory, but from the Cat fallacy that is all most folks know about the man.
...and I though it referred to how Vancian casters have several quantified levels of energy to fill with spells (spell slots)...
'findel
|
Most, if not all, of quantum physics seems more like philosophy than science. But then, take a look at noetics, which goes even further than quantum physics. Noetics says that not only does the electron assume one of the two locations on observation, but with practice the observer can direct the outcome with his or her mind.What am I reading?!?
Quantum mechanics is more philosophy than science?!?
Pretty much all modern technology is based on understanding quantum physics. Computers, chemistry, materials science, solar-based power generation, nuclear power, nanotechnology, and countless other areas of science and engineering are fundamentally linked to quantum physics.
If it wasn't for our understanding of energy levels in semiconductors you wouldn't even be able to post your ignorant comment.
Actually that technology is an application of quantum physics, which is based on knowing how things will behave in given conditions. Understanding why they behave that way is not necessary. Which is good as we mostly have no clue.
I am aware of how pedantic I am being, but If I hadn't told you that you wouldn't know and therefore I would be both aware and unaware until you asked me.
On a side note, most infant sciences are much like philosophy, which basically amounts to a bunch of interested parties standing around saying things such as "I think it might work like (insert theory here)" and then arguing over the data.
Things derive their being and nature by mutual dependence and are nothing in themselves.
A 2nd century Buddhist philosopher.
I think trying to draw similarities between science and philosophy is rather pointless. All science is basically an extension of Rationalism and Empiricism (which in the late 19th century were combined into Pragmatism, which helped spawn the Scientific Method). You start with the known and continue building with evidence to learn and prove more things. If you want to argue that QP is a different type of philosophy, I guess you can try, but all science is inherently philosophy.
Not all philosophy is science, but all science is philosophy.
Back to Schrodinger's cat:
The answer is obvious: the cat is a zombie.
I think bloody zombie would be better. Then we wouldn;t know if it was dead, alive, dead but regenerating. Wait now that I think about it zombies are immune to poison. It must be alive. cool we colapsed the wave function. Or broke it. Such vandals.
Great read, I am loving this thread, though I suspect a move or closing at some point...
As far as I am concerned, in my many years of shutting myself in my room with books on both subjects... The subject of science, and philosophy, go very much hand in hand, and are very much two sides of the same broadening coin. This, of course, requires an intuitive understanding of the underlying factor and force behind both, and the simple act of arguing over the two is pointless.
Remember. There can be no advancement in anything without imagination and creativity.
After all.. If no one had the imagination to ponder the mysteries of the universe, we wouldn't have thought and considered them, which means we wouldn't have wanted to test our hypotheses to find the cold hard facts.
Edit: And on the topic of the Schrodinger's class.... What else do you expect of the people for the classes they love? Hell, all builds are entirely dependent on specific campaigns, and most people utterly useless in home-brew sandbox (unless you have a very uncreative DM, but even them).
