> > > > > > > > [scerir] But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a > > language, nothing more than a language. Efficient? > > > > > [Bruno] If it is a language, the question is what does that > > language refers too, and what or who does the conversation (in that > > language). >
I would mean: A general, natural "syntax" (or "operating system" maybe?). What does that "syntax" refers to? Good question. Well, I think that "something" for sure exists. Something knowable. I'm a realist. Everett III was a realist. At least, his interpretation was realist. Schroedinger thought his waves were real. So, I think that the supposed "syntax" could refer to real things, let us say "states" or Ur-objects or physical informations or knowable relations, or something else. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00676265 But are those "states" real? David Finkelstein wrote: "In quantum theory we represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical reality on which they act." Right. But isn't that - precisely - a "syntax"? And can Finkelstein exclude the very existence of that "hypothetical reality" on which operators act? -- 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/1132548789.189923.1615396769469%40mail1.libero.it.
