Just about 20 years ago, I abandoned a career as a physical chemist to become a philosopher science. For most of those 20 years, people (especially scientists) have been asking me what the heck the philosophy of science is, and whether scientists have any need of it.
Abstract. Current thinking on the interpretation of quantum physics is reviewed, with special detail given to the Copenhagen and Everett many-worlds interpretations.
In an earlier paper , we made an attempt to show — by reviewing Russian physics textbooks and in the light of recent theoretical developments (Bell inequalities, the Kochen–Specker theorem – ) and the new Bell inequality violation and teleportation experiments of Aspect, Zeilinger, and others [7, 8] — how quantum physics should not be interpreted today, the beginning of the 21st century. We refrained, however, from discussing how it should be interpreted. It is the purpose of this paper to address this issue, presenting some constructive considerations about such an interpretation.
“Man’s respect for knowledge is one of his most peculiar characteristics. Knowledge in Latin is scientia, and science came to be the name of the most respectable kind of knowledge.”—Imre Lakatos (Curd, Martin, and J. A. Cover. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, p. 20. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1998. Print.)
Just how accurate are the memories that we know are true, that we believe in?
The brain abhors a vacuum. Under the best of observation conditions, the absolute best, we only detect, encode and store in our brains bits and pieces of the entire experience in front of us. When it’s important for us to recall what it was that we experienced, we have an incomplete [memory] store, and what happens?
Below awareness, without any kind of motivated processing, the brain fills in information that was not there, not originally stored, from inference, from speculation, from sources of information that came to you, as the observer, after the observation. But it happens without awareness such that you aren’t even cognizant of it occurring. It’s called ‘reconstructed memory.’
All our memories are reconstructed memories. They are the product of what we originally experienced and everything that’s happened afterwards. They’re dynamic. They’re malleable. They’re volatile. And as a result, we all need to remember that the accuracy of our memories is not measured in how vivid they are nor how certain you are that they’re correct.
”—Are your memories real .. or fake? Neurophysiologist Scott Fraser says you shouldn’t be so sure that what you remember is always what actually happened. Fraser researches how humans remember crimes, and in a powerful talk at TEDxUSC, he suggests that even close-up eyewitnesses to a crime can create “memories” they couldn’t have seen.