= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
IlyaShpitser comments on Yet more "stupid" questions - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (340)
Is 'unphysical' anything at all like 'unchristian'? In other words, is 'un' modifying 'physics' or 'physicists'?
It's modifying Physics. A theory that doesn't act like physics. A theory that produces no new predictions but invents details to shuffle our ignorance into different more palatable forms.
I'm thinking of, on the one hand, objective collapse, and on the other hand, global hidden variables about imagined real states -- variables which, in order to be anything like compatible with QM must mysteriously shuffle around so that each time you measure one that is the end of its domain of applicability and you'll never be able to use that information for anything.
I think you are confusing "theory" and "interpretation." There is consensus on the vast majority (all?) of QM, the physical theory.
"Interpretations" are stories we tell ourselves. Arguing about interpretation is like arguing about taste.
Fine, but something needs explanation when you've got this energy-conserving theory which results in the energy content of the universe changing.
The quantum theory has the same predictions for all interpretations, and does not violate energy conservation.
I don't know what "energy content of the universe changing" means if energy is conserved. You are arguing about taste.