TheOtherDave comments on Is Reality Ugly? - Less Wrong

21 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 January 2008 10:26PM

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

Comments (39)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 12 August 2012 06:39:38AM 1 point [-]

It occurs to me that one consequence of learning about QM from the sequence (as many people are doing), is that you then need to un-learn wavefunction realism, if you want to think about the subject for yourself. A better way to learn QM is to approach it as an incomplete classical-looking theory. E.g. a particle isn't really a wavefunction; it's a particle, with a position and momentum that we only know imprecisely, and the wavefunction is a calculating device that gives you the probabilities. Once you're clear on that picture, then you can say "this theory is manifestly incomplete; what's the actual physical reality, and why does this wavefunction thing work?" And then you're in a position to consider whether the wavefunction itself could somehow be the actual physical object. But because the sequence presupposes wavefunction realism from the beginning - even the Copenhagen interpretation is mostly portrayed as being about an objectively existing wavefunction with two modes of evolution - it would take an unusually careful reader to come to the sequence with no prior knowledge of QM, and still notice the possibility that wavefunctions aren't real.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 12 August 2012 02:44:45PM 0 points [-]

Probably true.
That said, I'm not sure how many readers could approach QM as a "classical-looking theory" and notice the possibility that particles aren't real.
I'm also not sure there's a way to approach QM -- or, indeed, anything else -- that doesn't bias the reader in favor of some ontology.