Timeline for Philosophical implications of entangled states (and the 2022 physics nobel prize)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2022 at 16:50 | vote | accept | nate | ||
| S Nov 2, 2022 at 12:23 | history | suggested | Roger V. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
capitalization
|
| Nov 2, 2022 at 11:04 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 2, 2022 at 12:23 | |||||
| Nov 2, 2022 at 7:16 | comment | added | armand | If we are talking about the empirical world, what we can see, and touch, all the knowledge we can gather about it is based on inductive reasoning (by opposition to the realm of deductive reasoning, logic and maths) and therefore already subject to uncertainty. Although I am very certain to have two hands, there is after all a non zero probability that I am mistaken (denial due to trauma, dream, etc). Adding to it the probabilistic aspect if quantum physics won't change much about the irresistible uncertainty of out knowledge about the world. | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 2:53 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Nov 1, 2022 at 23:49 | comment | added | user4894 | "Tim Maudlin Corrects the 2022 Nobel Physics Committee About Bell's Inequality" youtube.com/watch?v=OduDEz77h9U @Sandejo also linked a Tim Maudlin paper. If you want great insight into the philosophy of quantum physics and Bell's inequality presented by a brilliant and lucid philosopher, you should Google Tim Maudlin and watch all his videos. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 22:21 | comment | added | Conifold | The problem is not even subjectivity, it is that "what it implies about how we interact with "reality"" is as vague as "give me life advice", and just as "useful" to ask. If you want cogent answers you'll have to do your own reading and thinking first, narrow it down, and then ask something much more specific. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 21:12 | answer | added | niels nielsen | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 19:31 | answer | added | Sandejo | timeline score: 9 | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:43 | review | Close votes | |||
| Nov 10, 2022 at 3:01 | |||||
| Nov 1, 2022 at 18:29 | comment | added | CriglCragl | This is pretty spot on: smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 | |
| S Nov 1, 2022 at 17:06 | review | First questions | |||
| Nov 1, 2022 at 21:17 | |||||
| S Nov 1, 2022 at 17:06 | history | asked | nate | CC BY-SA 4.0 |