On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/10/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Dec 2012, at 02:03, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:51 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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 eigenselection, 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. >> >> > It is fine if QM is a probabilistic theory. Where I disagree with him is > in his belief that we can never go beyond that in our understanding of it. > I am not sure how accurate this statement is, since it is a secondary > source, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Omn%C3%A8s says: "We will > never, Omnès believes, find a common sense interpretation of quantum law > itself." To me, it almost seems as if he says it is not worth trying to > find an answer. I lean more towards David Deutsch who says science is > about finding good explanations. > > > Omnes is very special. His many books gives the best account and defense > of the MWI, except that in the last paragraph, or chapter, he insist that > we have to be irrational, in fine, and select one reality. This is really > cosmo-solipsism, and makes QM indeed no more rational at all. > > > What's not rational about it? I think 'rational' just means 'being able > to give coherent reasons'. There's a perfectly good coherent reason for > 'selecting' one reality - we experience one reality. > > > But there is no reason to extrapolate from this. We experience a flat > earth, we see the Sun turning around Earth, we feel the need of force to > keep the same speed, etc. > > > And all those inferences were perfectly rational. The fact that later, > more comprehensive theories were found doesn't change that. Rational is > not the same as 'always right'. > > > Usually when we refer to experience we are wrong > > > We're not wrong about the experience, although we may be wrong about it's > extrapolations. > > > (and from this some extrapolate wrongly that we cannot mention > experience in experiment ...). > > Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something > (consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from > theories already extrapolated. > > > I agree. But the model of reality we build should comport with > experience. We don't experience many worlds, so a valid model must include > that. > We don't (in this present) experience our conscious state of 5 minutes ago. Would you reject the idea that "the universe is a 4-dimensional static structure with no objective present" on this basis? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
