On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 4:45:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/16/2019 2:38 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:54:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>> The epistemic interpretation just says the wf is our mathematical
>> representation of what we know about reality.
>>
>>
> If that is the definition of epistemic, then any mathematical physics is
> epistemic ("ur mathematical representation of what we know"):
>
>
> It is the definition of epistemic. And it is in contrast to the ontic
> interpretation of QM which says that the wave function is real and changing
> it due to a measurement must be described a some physical process, not just
> taking the measurement into account to update our knowledge.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>From an applied mathematics perspective, it seems that *Schrödinger
equation*, *Einstein equations*, *Maxwell's equations*, ... are all tools
for making predictions about measurements, whether those measurements are
made by lab instruments or telescopes.
I don't see where a philosophically metaphysical and esoteric term like
"knowledge" comes in in any of those equations.
@philipthrift
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c22c02f3-a24a-4ed3-ae53-4dafa428d8ca%40googlegroups.com.
