Just FYI, I think the quote is “*it* wouldn’t have been worth…”
Well, I have looking for the original source but seems that the phrase comes in those both variants, with the slightly different nuances… In my opinion (or my likes) “I wouldn’t…” fits better than “It wouldn’t…” in the Feynman’s spirit, but I’m not an English native, and maybe someone could tell us other point of view. Thanks.
Donna Haraway is an example of a postmodernist who understands science (triple majored in biology, philosophy, literature) and actually calls out the abuse of scientific language such as "vibration". Still rather impenetrably written as postmodernists are want to do, and I've only read the essay "A Cyborg Manifesto", but I do have the impression that she is pretty grounded in physical reality.
Hi! I don’t know her so I can’t say if her science is reliable. But surely there are some people meaningful into postmodernism… even perhaps some epistemic knowledge can be extracted from this movement… but I fear that not much, and probably insignificant compared to the damage and confusion created in the twentieth century. IMHO.
We are in the midst of a cosmic flowering of synchronicity that will remove the barriers to the dreamscape itself.
LOL. Click “Reionize electrons" for more postmodern bullshit.
Yep, “postmodernism" is not synonymous of "New Age”, I know that, but there are some links that make both terms interchangeable, at least in some contexts as in this one. Next some references who might support my thoughts on this issue:
“New Age” Philosophies of Science: Constructivism, Feminism and Post-Modernism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (2000), 667-683 (PDF)
“[Computer science] is not really about computers — and it’s not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not about microscopes and Petri dishes…and geometry isn’t really about using surveying instruments. Now the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field is just getting started and you don’t really understand it very well, it’s very easy to confuse the essence of what you’re doing with the tools that you use.”—
"Yep, Einstein [...] didn’t accept Quantum Mechanics at the time..." Hey ScienceIsBeauty, that's just the story you get in poorly researched pop physics books. It's the story many physicists believe, but that's because they learn their history of science from popular science, not historians. Einstein did accept QM, but not Copenhagen interpretation because it wasn't radical enough. It was Einstein who proved entanglement happened! Arthur Fine's book 'The Shaky Game' tells the story well.
Hi, thanks for your comment. Actually I’m almost sure that historians (and philosophers) did not understand Quantum Mechanics either. ;-)
The Einstein’s problem with QM was the probabilistic character of the theory (i.e. the probabilistic character of nature: “God does not play dice”), but this character is intrinsic to nature, inseparable from QM, and involves the falsation of once and for all of Classical Mechanics.
Einstein never accepted this breakdown of Determinism (and neither did with Quantum Nonlocality), with implications not only in Physics but also important philosophical consequences, and died thinking that something was missing in Quantum Mechanics so that the deterministic character of nature might be recover. Well, this has not happened, is not likely to happen, and as I said in my comment, given the enormous accumulation of empirical and theoretical evidence (remember that all Particle Physics, Quantum Electrodynamics and the Standard Model, for example, lie upon Quantum Mechanics), I’m pretty sure that Einstein would not think the same nowadays… although who knows?
Being patronising doesn’t make you right :-P Just as I said - you repeating a common but false story. It was Einstein who proved mathematically that QM could not be both local and deterministic - so he did accept QM & non-locality.
C’mon, being patronising (and/or sarcastic) doesn’t make you right either. It seems to me that you have skipped the Bohr–Einstein debates, or maybe you think you can still help Einstein win the debate. Well, is not the case. I recommend you this post at The Reference Frame where is explained very clearly why it is not the case.
Also, locality is ensured because the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein accepted “non-locality" (i.e. quantum entanglement) because it was impossible to dodge in the "new" theoretical framework, but he remains skeptics about the "completness" and other stuff of the quantum theory. In other words, he did not quite believe that quantum mechanics was the definitive answer to this alleged “non locality”.
I think all these drawbacks to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, have been surpassed today, and the proof is that this view of the theory is the most widely used and accepted by the scientific community, and indeed are the other interpretations which often fall headlong into the pseudoscience.
By the way, could you kindly provide some links endorsing your arguments? Thanks.
“I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.”—