On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>   On 12/9/2012 4:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb <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 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, Omn├Ęs 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to