= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pengvado comments on Open Thread, August 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (676)
I don't have any arguments that weren't discussed in that post; so far as I can tell, it already adequately addressed your objection:
QM doesn't have to be the end of the road. If QM is a good approximation of reality on the scales it claims to predict in the situations we have already tested it in -- if the math of QM does describe reality to some degree or other -- then that's enough for the quantum tests of particle identity to work exactly.
to put it mildly I don't believe anyone can address that objection satisfactorily, as wedrifid put it eloquently, the math is part of the map, not territory.
agreed, that was partially my point a couple of posts ago. for practical reasons it's good enough that the math works to a degree.