Godfrey writes > > > Yes we cannot explain QM by classical physics > > > but NEITHER can we explain from QM the classical > > > world we know and love with its well defined and > > > assigned elements of (naive) physical reality > > > that you so much cherish, I am afraid! If we did > > > there would not be no Measurement Problem, no spooky > > > long-distance correlations, no zombie Schrodinger > > > Cat's around to haunt us... > > > Quantum mechanics' greatest successes have included > > explanations for what you cite. That is why QM is > > accepted. > > My point is that it does NOT include explanations for > any of the items I cite and that is why I cite them > and that is why they are called "problems".
We are using the term *explain* in different ways. Look, would you have disagreed (were you living in 1800) with the Marquis Pierre Simon de LaPlace when he would assert that Newton's theory of gravity explained all celestial movements? I guess so! YOU probably would have said, "Mais non, it does not explain how an influence can instantaneously reach out through space. It does not even explain what gravity *is*!" (And by the way, no fair using Mercury's orbit, the details of which were not discovered at that time.) LaPlace would have looked down his nose at you and replied that "the *theory* explains the movements, you fool. C'est facile de voir that you, Monsieur, wish to know what explains the theory. I have no need of your hypothesis, or of you." So likewise, I will say to you, we cannot explain quantum mechanics, but QUANTUM MECHANICS DELIVERS AN UNPRECEDENTED FIFTEEN DECIMAL PLACES OF ACCURACY and so explains incredibly perfectly the result of our laboratory experiments! YOU seem to want an explanation of (or a satisfactory interpretation of) the *theory*. The theory does not provide that! No theory--- not Newton's, not Einstein's, and not QM, can do that, can explain *itself*. > From Bruno's message I take it that you subscribe to the > Everett Interpretation which indeed "avoids" some of these > problems but has some more of its own and > surely does a number on your "naive reality"! > What is it then: many worlds or one? Many worlds of course. Have you or have you not read "Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch? As for a number on my "naive reality"... For Christ's sake, I give up with you. You are hopeless. You are probably one of those people who calls "fascist" everyone who has political disagreements with you, whether or not they themselves adopt the term. I give up. I hereby grant permission for the incredible Godfrey Kurt Lee to call me a "naive realist" --- but him only! Nobody else better try it! Lee P.S. I will reply to the rest of your post when I am less exercised :-)