3 ms·
Still (and I am a quantum physics PhD) I don't get what is wrong with having many _interpretations_. Especially, as in physics there are many other phenomena th
by stared 11y ago
Still (and I am a quantum physics PhD) I don't get what is wrong with having many _interpretations_. Especially, as in physics there are many other phenomena that can be _interpreted_ in different ways. For the simplest: movement as forces vs as a teleological least action principle.
While for some phenomena one is easier that the other, considering that there should be only one "true" interpretation, is, at best, narrow-mindness (and at worst: dogmatism, a very enemy of science).
- iofj 11y agoWell the reason that it is "wrong" is that for many people (generally the ones outside of scientific endeavours) the interpretations are physics. Let's face facts : most people are never going to learn even basic physics beyond high school level, and oversimplified "philsophy" is all they'll ever know. (As my philosophy professor said: history seems to indicate that science is the way to be right, and philosophy is the science of being wrong) And the opinion that interpretation doesn't matter, there's equations, and what they say takes precedence over whatever a human mind produces. That they don't fit well in any of these "interpretations" merely amplifies that belief (as it should). It's a matter of perspective.
- stared 11y agoSome interpretation may matter, as e.g. they can be more fruitful in generating new predictions, or extending a theory. And some may turn out to be wrong (e.g. the hidden variable interpretation, which before Bell was considered just a different interpretation). So my impression is that the lay audience like hearing big words, even if they cannot understand it at all (but it is easier to delude oneself that one understands "many words" than a particular set of equations).