Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday May 03 2017, @07:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the so-it's-what-you-know,-not-who dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

One of the most striking features of quantum theory is that its predictions are, under virtually all circumstances, probabilistic. If you set up an experiment in a laboratory, and then you use quantum theory to predict the outcomes of various measurements you might perform, the best the theory can offer is probabilities—say, a 50 percent chance that you'll get one outcome, and a 50 percent chance that you'll get a different one. The role the quantum state plays in the theory is to determine, or at least encode, these probabilities. If you know the quantum state, then you can compute the probability of getting any possible outcome to any possible experiment.

But does the quantum state ultimately represent some objective aspect of reality, or is it a way of characterizing something about us, namely, something about what some person knows about reality? This question stretches back to the earliest history of quantum theory, but has recently become an active topic again, inspiring a slew of new theoretical results and even some experimental tests.

If it is just your knowledge that changes, things don't seem so strange.

To see why the quantum state might represent what someone knows, consider another case where we use probabilities. Before your friend rolls a die, you guess what side will face up. If your friend rolls a standard six-sided die, you'd usually say there is about a 17 percent (or one in six) chance that you'll be right, whatever you guess. Here the probability represents something about you: your state of knowledge about the die. Let's say your back is turned while she rolls it, so that she sees the result—a six, say—but not you. As far as you are concerned, the outcome remains uncertain, even though she knows it. Probabilities that represent a person's uncertainty, even though there is some fact of the matter, are called epistemic, from one of the Greek words for knowledge.

This means that you and your friend could assign very different probabilities, without either of you being wrong. You say the probability of the die showing a six is 17 percent, whereas your friend, who has seen the outcome already, says that it is 100 percent. That is because each of you knows different things, and the probabilities are representations of your respective states of knowledge. The only incorrect assignments, in fact, would be ones that said there was no chance at all that the die showed a six.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:39PM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:39PM (#503615) Journal

    At first I was confused by your quote, since Boethius is off on an argument about the knowledge of God and the possibility of predestination's compatibility with free will here, and the immediate context is a sort of Platonic form argument combined with different faculties of perception. Outside of that context, he certainly wasn't the first to note that apparent knowledge depends on the viewer (see Protagoras or Sextus Empiricus, for example) or that sight is a superior sense (e.g., Aristotle).

    But now I think I see your analogy here, and it's quite interesting. I still don't think Boethius had anything close to the physicists' epistemic relativism in mind here, but there's a connection between the temporal nature of perception and revelation in Boethius's example about a round body only "partibus comprehendit," compared to the atemporal "God's eye view." Given that this is all in the context of a free will discussion, the idea of possibility/probability is also implicitly involved in this act of gradual revelation.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 03 2017, @04:17PM

    by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday May 03 2017, @04:17PM (#503727) Journal

    Now, see this is why i like this site.

    Over on that other site, this conversation would probably go something like:

    "They don't know shite!"
    "You don't know shite!"

    Instead, we get intelligence and thoughtfulness and insight that makes me think.

    I'd eat you both up, but i don't like Soylent Red: i prefer the new Soylent Green.

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---