Norman Samish wrote:
> A while back Peter Jones and Brent Meeker independently pointed out the
> illogicality of my non-acceptance of both MWI AND "wave-collapse" as
> explanations of "quantum weirdness." They seemed to say that the
> explanation had to be one or the other. Now I've read what Colin Hales
> has to say. I find his statements express the reservations I feel.
> He writes (slightly paraphrased), ".* . . a mathematical model (quantum
> mechanics) that seems to imply multiple universes does not mean that
> they exist. . . Only that the model makes it look like they do. I can
> imagine any number of situations where the fuzziness of the ultra-scale
> world obeys the rules of a QM-like model. For example, the perfectly
> deterministically repeated trajectory of whatever an electron is made of
> through 35.4 spatial dimensions is going to look awfully fuzzy to
> critters observing it as . . . three dimensions. QM depicts
> fuzziness... and 'aha' the universe is made of QM? Not so. It merely
> appears to obey the abstraction QM provides us.
> "QM says nothing about what the universe is actually constructed of. It
> is not constructed of quantum mechanics! It is constructed of something
> that behaves quantum mechanically."*
> Thank you, Colin Hales. I believe your remarks apply to any theory.
> Theories are descriptions of what we think reality may be - they are not
> Norman Samish
I too have strong reservations about MWI and wave-function collapse - but
one needs to say which one is wrong and how before simply rejecting them. I
think Colin Hales is wrong when he says he can "imagine any number of
situations where the fuzziness of the ultra-scale world obeys the rules of a
QM-like model." If he can he should write down what he imagines and post it
to arXiv.org, because there are a lot of very good physicists, like Gerard
t'Hoft and Roland Omnes for example, who are looking for a consistent way of
interpreting the experimental results that avoids both MWI and WF collapse.
I don't think Hales has fully comprehended the implications of the
violation of Bell's inequality in QM. There are of course non-local
theories involving extra-dimensions or universal wave-functions but they
don't seem to do anything except recast the problem into other words.
I also think Hale fails to appreciate that all of our knowledge of the world
(and of ourselves) is embodied in models, though not necessarily
mathematical ones. Our thoughts and reasoning about things are not the
things themselves - they are always models or representations. So when Hale
says we needn't believe something because it's just a model, he's really
taking a radically agnostic position. That other people exist is just part
of my model of the universe - it does mean that they do. On the other hand
it's a very good model and I don't have a better one...and neither does Hales.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at