On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:18 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And all of that is fundamentally the same as "shut up and calculate ",
>> they're just dressed up in slightly different philosophical bafflegab.
> * > They're not "dressed up", they are perfectly explicit in their
> interpretation and ontology.  *

Not just explicit but "perfectly explicit"?! I don't think so. I think
Copenhagen and QBism are not quantum interpretations at all, they're just
thinly disguised "shut up and calculate"; Pilot Wave and Many Worlds are
genuine interpretations, both are deterministic but pilot wave is not local
and Many Worlds is not realistic. Explicit collapse theories like GRW are
not quantum interpretations at all but propose a new theory that would
replace quantum mechanics, a theory that is much harder to use than quantum
mechanics, is nondeterministic, has no experimental evidence in its favor,
nobody knows how to make it compatible with special relativity, and
GRW violates
conservation of energy that some on this list think is sacred holy writ.

>> If Everett is right then when an electron makes an up/down decision it
>> makes no difference if you think of it as the entire universe  instantly
>> splits or as the split expanding outward at the speed of light, either way
>> something that happens on the surface of that expanding sphere can have no
>> effect on its center because no signal can travel faster than light.

> *An electron makes an up/down decision??  That's a new interpretation!
> You miss the point that* [...]

I'm quite sure you are not missing my point, but you were certainly trying
very hard to pretend that you are.

> *> parts of the universe not accounted for in your SE are acting on the
> instrument which is interacting with the electron as it's "making a
> decision". *

You're talking about non-locality such as in pilot wave theory, a particle
right here can instantly make a profound change to another particle on the
other side of the universe without affecting anything in between. That
sounds a little bit too much like magic for my taste, I agree with Isaac
Newton when he said:

"*T**hat one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action
and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an
absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a
competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it *"

> * > It's not the one-light-minute sphere expanding after the measurement
> event, it's the one-light-minute sphere contracting onto the measurement
> event before it.  How does the SE account for it?*

You tell me, you're the one pushing this cockamamie idea.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to