On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 12/9/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

        And without a doubt the most popular interpretation of Quantum 
Mechanics among
        working physicists is SUAC (Shut Up And Calculate),

    That's not an interpretation at all.

    Well for a more philosophical statement of it see Omnes.  His view is that 
once you
    can explain the diagonalization of the the density matrix (either by 
    dechoherence, or just assumed per Bohr) then you have predicted 
probabilities.  QM
    is a probabilistic theory - so predicting probabilities is all you can ask 
of it.

Is science just about its applications or about understanding the world? I would argue that science would not progress so far as it has if we thought finding the equation was the be all and end all of science. The "shut up and calculate" mindset can be translated as "don't ask embarrassing questions", it is the antithesis of scientific thinking.

Student in the 1500s: Does the earth move about the sun, or do the planets merely appear to move as if earth moved about the sun? Professor in the 1500s: We have all the formulas for predicting planetary motion, so shut up and calculate!

Fortunately, Copernicus wasn't satisfied with that answer.

So what's your objection to Omnes? That the world just can't be probabilistic? So instead there must be infinitely many inaccessible worlds - which happen to mimic a probabilistic world.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to