On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 11:01:32 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:40 AM <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> *> What puzzles me is this; why would the Founders assume that a system in
>> a superposition is in all component states simultaneously -- contradicting
>> the intuitive appeal of Einstein realism*
>>
>
> Because in physics experiment is king, and however intuitive naive realism
> may be something conflicts with it, We know from experimental results that
> Bell's Inequality is violated, therefore we know for certain that if the
> universe is deterministic then it can't be both local and realistic, at
> least one of those 2 things must be false. I don't see how locality could
> be wrong. If things were non-local a change anywhere would instantly change
> everything everywhere and the effect would be undiminished by distance, so
> before you could understand anything you'd have to understand everything.
> We certainly don't know everything but we do know something and I don't see
> how we could if things were non-local. And if things are not realistic then
> the moon doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it, and that seems like
> too high a price to pay for determinism.
>
> Actually if Everett is right then you could have all 3 to the multiverse's
> point of view because it evolves according to the wave equation and that is
> completely deterministic, but that's a bit of a cheat because you can't
> have an observer outside of the multiverse looking in at it.
>
>
>> >*when that assumption is not used in calculating probabilities*
>>
>
> It doesn't matter what your favorite quantum interpretation is or what
> your philosophical ideas about determinism locality and realism are, we all
> calculate the same way and get the same probability. Everybody agrees about
> how the world behaves but disagree about why it behaves that way. However
> nobody has performed an exparament that can decide which of the various
> interpretations is correct, and most working physicists aren't very
> interested in philosophy, and that's why most favor the "shut up and
> calculate" quantum interpretation.
>
> John K Clark
>
The "just calculate" interpretation is filled with "computational"
interpretations. There is not one method of calculation. Each method of
calculation has within it some sort of "programmatic model":
*Computational Quantum Mechanics*
http://research.physics.illinois.edu/electronicstructure/498cqm/498gen-info.html
e.g. "finding the ground state of the many-body Schrödinger equation by
propagation in imaginary time using Monte Carlo methods"
- pt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
