You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

nyan_sandwich comments on The ongoing transformation of quantum field theory - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 29 December 2012 09:45AM

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

Comments (19)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 29 December 2012 09:10:17PM 6 points [-]

That sounds sensible, but even on rereading, it is entirely unclear to me where the OP said anything about that. Maybe I just lack the physics grooves in my brain that would help me grok this, but I can't be the only one.

If that is in fact the point of this post, I think it could vastly improved by saying at the outset "here's this new hypothetical physics that physicists are playing with that is interesting to us because X" and then discussing the implications rather than just the physics and math.

and if X really is something about reconciling physical reductionism with positivism, then I'm totally confused, because those things don't seem to need reconciling.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 29 December 2012 09:52:21PM 4 points [-]

I think bogus is talking about this passage:

If the probability calculus of quantum mechanics can be obtained from conventional probability theory applied to these "structures" that may underlie familiar space-time, then that would mean that superposition does not need to be regarded as ontological.

which seems to be suggesting that the approach may eventually solve the puzzle of Born probabilities. I agree with you that it would have been nice to have this at the top of the post, if it's supposed to be the main point.