The classic example of an expert thinker is a philosopher. Their field is frequently portrayed as a formal process that identifies fallacies. They aim to avoid and differentiate between deductive and inductive thought, flawed and strong arguments. Each of these items has a purpose. Philosophy, however, cannot be reduced to a mere technicality.

Adopting the proper attitudes and being ready to develop productive routines are also necessary for good thinking. Wise people have worked on these issues throughout history in order to further both humanity’s advancement and their own. Why not build upon the countless years of experience and millions of hours of reflection and practice rather than starting from scratch?

Be truthful

Sometimes philosophical debates become competitive. But the sharpest thinkers refrain from arguing or criticizing. According to one such philosopher, Bernard Williams, accuracy and sincerity are the two main virtues of truth.

The greatest threat to truthfulness is not outright lying, but rather the triumph of righteousness over the quest for the truth. Hence, truthfulness in thought means overcoming an ego that despises making mistakes.

Be compassionate

It’s simpler to discard people with whom we disagree if we attribute obviously silly or ignorant opinions to them. But just as we are not as intelligent as we would like to believe, neither are other people typically as foolish as we believe them to be.

Because of this, we must take into account an opponent’s strongest and not only their weakest argument. They might not be able to make a stronger argument than this. During the EU referendum campaign, for instance, it would have been easy to ignore some of the assertions made by the official leave side if you had been a remainer. But some arguments were more serious and less amenable to dismissal; those were the ones that most deserved a response.

Using the compassionate principle can highlight both strengths and weaknesses. The easiest approach to comprehend any stance is to consider the underlying presuppositions that would justify it.

Keep things straightforward but not too much

The idea of Occam’s razor is that all other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more comprehensive one. 

But putting on of the most famous rules of philosophy into practice is not an easy task. All other things being equal is the main qualification. Complex conspiracies are less frequent than all-too-human slip-ups, yet some things genuinely are conspiracies. The enemy typically uses bombs and weapons, but there are also false-flag activities.

So, the old adage isn’t always applicable in the real world. The inclination for simplicity is a virtue but we should search for explanations that are neither overly complex nor overly simple.

Think independently but search out knowledge

Having courage to apply your own intellect is the mantra of enlightenment, according to Kant. He described immaturity as the inability to make use of one’s own understanding without direction from another.

You can gain more information by drawing on other people’s experiences and what they have to offer. They may be more knowledgeable than you are on particular issues or have simply read more about it.

We should be open to thinking outside of our own culture and be willing to apply other ideas. Just as it is conceited to believe that we as individuals have nothing to learn from our peers, it is arrogance to believe that any one tradition has the only right to interpret the universe. The best thinking occurs while we are conversing with others.

Pursue clarity rather than assurance.

Many people prefer to focus on either clarity or certainty.  In terms of the rules of philosophy one of the few certainties we know however is that certainty of any anything is rare. But, if you strive for greater clarity fresh perspectives become apparent.

The tempting nature of certainty is another reason to be wary of it. While confidence is an unreliable predictor of correctness, witnesses in court trials who show conviction about what they have seen tend to be believed more. Certainty is also related to fundamentalism, dogmatism, and pompousness. People who desire it should exercise caution in their wishes.

Follow the average

One of the rules of philosophy states there are excesses and deficiencies rather than an opposite virtue for almost every virtue. Generosity is the middle ground between wastefulness and restraint; compassion between indifference and indulgence, and pride between self-hatred and haughtiness.

You can be both too specific and too ambiguous. Too accepting of a point of view you don’t agree with and too dismissive. You can either think too much for yourself or not enough.

Because of this, every intellectual virtue must be accompanied by a warning not to slavishly apply it. For example, follow an argument wherever it goes, but don’t follow it to absurdity. Question everything, but not always. Define your terms as precisely as you can, but don’t assume that all terms can be defined with 100 percent accuracy. Even highly moral stances can be abused to turn into vices. Balance and discernment are necessary for thinking virtues, but happily, everyone can master these abilities.

The post Rules of philosophy to live by appeared first on PhilosophicalIdiot.com.

Is the particle actually in a superposition of states; or is this way of thinking we developed to represent how we measure things? This is the fundamental conundrum that still vexes or inspires physicists. A position on this issue involves selecting a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics and our worldview. It is crucial to emphasize how well quantum physics functions mathematically. It does a fantastic job of describing the experiments. As a result, we are no longer discussing whether quantum mechanics is a valid theory or not. Whether it accurately captures physical reality as it exists or not is the question.

Numerous ways to view the quantum world

Despite the fact that quantum physics is a valid theory, it is fiercely contested just like philosophy. There are numerous philosophical traditions and complex counterarguments. But in their broadest sense, the schools are divided into two schools of thought. They both rely on the well-known wavefunction; the main character of the quantum world.

The ontic interpretation

Those who believe that the wavefunction describes reality as it is and that it is a component of reality can be found in one corner. This school of thought is known as ontic interpretation. They believe the wavefunction’s absolute square represents the likelihood of measuring this or that physical property. Although it doesn’t describe something tangible like the particle’s location or momentum, the superpositions it does characterize are a part of reality.

The epistemic interpretation

Those who believe that the wavefunction is not a component of reality can be found in the other corner. They see a mathematical framework that enables us to interpret the results of our experiments. The epistemic interpretation is another name for this school of thought that derives from the philosophical concept of epistemology. According to this theory, the only way to understand what occurs at the quantum level is through measurements. The laws of quantum physics are excellent at describing the outcomes of these measurements. It is not necessary to grant the wavefunction any sort of reality as it only symbolizes potentialities, or potential results of a measurement. It maintains that humans do not understand the nature of the wavefunction; just its effects. 

It illustrates to us that we accept the superpositions of potential states coexisting before a measurement is conducted. It is just a description of what we are unable to know. The system only exists in the state that is measured when it is measured, and nothing else. It raises the idea that determining reality may involve the measurer in some way. But for all intents and purposes, what counts is that the hypothesis holds up.

Splits in the quantum highway

The ghost of scientific objectivity is what the ontic versus epistemic debate really comes down to. The idea that observers could determine anything about the nature of reality is utterly reprehensible to onticists. Is it really possible for an experimenter to tell if an electron is present or absent? There is another ontic  school of thought known as the Many Worlds interpretation. It states that that when a measurement is made, all potential outcomes are fulfilled. However  we can only directly access one of them; the world in which we currently live. The notion here is that measurement splits reality into a variety of universes. Each of which realizes a different potential experimental result.

These numerous worlds are, regrettably, inaccessible to observers in other worlds. There have been plans to test the Many Worlds through experimentation, but there are several barriers to overcome. These include the need for the lab-based quantum state of macroscopic entities. Also, it is unclear how to assign various probabilities to the various worlds in relation to the experiment’s results. The observer will only be able to survive in one universe.

Other ontic strategies call for adding reality to the process. For example  including a pilot wave with the explicit purpose of directing the particles into their outcomes. This has not been a popular idea amongst scientists however. 

The agent and reality

Interpretations differ just as much on the epistemic side. The dominant interpretation is the Copenhagen one. It claims that the wavefunction is merely a tool for describing what matters most; the results of scientific measurement.  Divergent opinions exist regarding the nature of the observer, how the act of measurement defines the physical characteristics of the item being viewed, and where the line between classical and quantum reality should be drawn.

What matters most

The fascinating findings of quantum physics depict a universe that never ceases to challenge and capture our imaginations. Just as it has for the past century, it keeps surprising us. Like philosophy, quantum physics will always have people arguing their points from different sides.

The post How philosophy relates to quantum physics appeared first on PhilosophicalIdiot.com.