pragmatist comments on 2013 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Less Wrong

78 Post author: Yvain 22 November 2013 09:26AM

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

Comments (616)

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

Comment author: EGI 28 November 2013 08:58:15AM 0 points [-]

Before I knew of Hilbert space and the universal wave function, I would have said 1, now I am somewhat confused about that.

Comment author: pragmatist 28 November 2013 10:09:26AM 6 points [-]

There are good reasons not to consider particles ontologically basic. For instance, particle number is not relativistically invariant in quantum field theory. What looks like a vacuum to an inertial observer will not look like a vacuum to an accelerating observer (see here). If the existence of particles depends on something as trivial as an observer's state of motion, it is hard to maintain that they are the basic constituents of the universe.

Comment author: EGI 29 November 2013 11:56:05AM 2 points [-]

Thanks! Did not know that.