On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 9:48:45 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/6/2020 5:13 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:10:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5 Jun 2020, at 23:36, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> ref (article by Jim Baggott): >>> >>> >>> https://medium.com/@MassimoPigliucci/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1 >>> >>> >>> https://twitter.com/philipcball/status/1268950876405850112 >>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fphilipcball%2Fstatus%2F1268950876405850112&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyoDxbukkDIr-ioIp_UjGFzLHeIg> >>> >>> Jim Baggott Retweeted >>> Philip Ball @philipcball >>> · >>> "The “collapse of the wavefunction” was never part of the Copenhagen >>> interpretation because the wavefunction isn’t interpreted realistically." I >>> have been trying to get this point across for ages; I really hope Jim has >>> more success. >>> >>> Quote Tweet >>> >>> Jim Baggott @JimBaggott >>> >>> No, the Copenhagen interpretation does not entail the collapse of the >>> wavefunction. >>> >>> >>> Then, if I look at a spin in the 1/sqrt(2) (up + down), with a {up, >>> down} measuring device, I am myself in a superposition state, if the wave >>> does not collapse. >>> Non collapse entails many world, or better many dreams. In that case >>> there is no collapse, but also no waves needed, as it has to be explained >>> by 2+2=4 & Co. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The best comment by a physicists (Associate Professor, Monash >> University) in the discussion thread: >> >> >> The wavefunction is not a physical thing - so whether it collapses is >> irrelevant. >> >> >> At least one physicist not brainwashed into the current religion. >> >> >> Baggott and also Hosenfelder seem to be endorsing an epistemic >> interpretation like QBism, but they don't directly discuss the problems >> with it. >> >> Brent >> > > Can you list some of these problems? AG >
As I pointed out, this is not the view Hossenfelder endorses at all, and I never saw Baggott endorse it. He does like this quote though: Thirty-one years ago, Dick Feynman told me about his 'sum over histories' version of quantum mechanics. "The electron does anything it likes," he said. "It just goes in any direction at any speed, forward or backward in time, however it likes, and then you add up the amplitudes and it gives you the wavefunction." I said to him, "You're crazy." But he isn't. *Freeman Dyson (1980)* @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/bcd61723-cced-4765-a1a8-addecc8c5f64o%40googlegroups.com.
