= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
whowhowho comments on If Many-Worlds Had Come First - 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 (179)
Perhaps you mean the sheer quantity is so great. But there have been, an are, disputes about classical pysyics and relativity. Some of them have been resolved by just beiieving the theory and abandoning contrary intuitions. At one time, atoms were dismissed as a "mere calculational device". Sound familiar?
Sure, every new theory is like that initially. But it only takes a short time for the experts to integrate the new weird ideas, like relative spacetime, or event horizons, or what have you. There is no agreement among the experts about the ontology of QM (beyond the undisputed assertion that head-in-the-sand "shut up and calculate" works just fine), and it's been an unusually long time. Most agree that the wave function is, in some sense, "real", but that's as far as it goes. So the difference is qualitative, not just quantitative. Simply "trusting the SE" gives you nothing useful, as far as the measurement is concerned.
It doesn't work "fine", or at all, as an interpretation. It's silent as to what it means.
There are slowly emerging themes, such as the uselessness of trying to recover classical physics at the fundamental level, and the importance of decoherence.
I don't see what you mean by that. An interpretation that says "trust the SE" (I suppose you mean "reify the evolution of the WF according to the SE") won't give you anything results-wise, because its an interpretation
Uh, no. It's not an interpretation (i.e. "explanation"), it's an explicit refusal to interpret the laws.
Anyway, time to disengage, we are not converging.
Yeah. Note also that if you are observing a probability distribution, that doesn't imply that something computed the probability density function. E.g. if you observe random dots positions of which follow Gaussian distribution, that could be count of heads in a long string of coin tosses rather than Universe Machine really squaring some real number, negating result, and calculating an exponent.