Eugine_Nier comments on How accurate is the quantum physics sequence? - Less Wrong

45 Post author: ciphergoth 17 April 2012 06:54AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Solvent 17 April 2012 07:37:02AM 11 points [-]

An extremely intelligent friend of mine who is studying physics as an undergraduate read the quantum physics sequence for me. He said that it's an alright explanation of the physics, in an extremely qualitative way. He said that he would personally prefer to learn QM properly via a textbook with more math.

He says that the argument given for many-worlds is valid iff you're a scientific realist, which not all scientists are.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 17 April 2012 08:25:41AM 3 points [-]

He says that the argument given for many-worlds is valid iff you're a scientific realist, which not all scientists are.

Even then it's not obvious that it's the best explanation. Also depends on what you mean by 'realist'.

Comment author: hairyfigment 17 April 2012 10:32:54PM 2 points [-]

Apparently Solvent's friend thinks otherwise. My own physics-grad-student friend said MWI looks like the best explanation, though he stressed our ignorance more.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 April 2012 02:59:11AM 1 point [-]

Well, another approach is to decide that probability distributions are merely a classical approximation to density matrices.