5 ms·

If you are religiously convinced that the QIT interpretation is the only true one that doesn't make it true. For me it is just one of the many interpretations a

If you are religiously convinced that the QIT interpretation is the only true one that doesn't make it true. For me it is just one of the many interpretations and I think that it is wrong on par with all the others that I'm aware of. If this wasn't the case then the measurement problem and the unification with the relativity theory (or with a theory that supersedes the relativity) would be already solved today. I'm really not in the field, but I don't think that anyone that actively works on QM is debating on solved problems.

lisper 10y ago
I am absolutely not religiously convinced that QIT is the only true explanation. In fact, I explicitly say at the end of my talk that it is not, that multiple-worlds is equally valid, and which you choose is a matter of personal preference. But if want to argue that no solution exists (and this is Weinberg's claim) then you have to consider all of the solutions on the table, and Weinberg does not. He deliberately ignores the fundamental (and IMHO ultimately clarifying) fact that entanglement and measurement are intimately related (and are in fact the same physical phenomenon). It is entirely unsurprising that anyone who ignores this fact ends up believing that there is a big mystery. But in fact there is no big mystery. There are only people who are mystified because they are ignoring (or ignorant of) this crucial fact.
- akvadrako 10y ago
  > There are only people who are mystified because they are ignoring (or ignorant of) this crucial fact. I don't think that's the only reason people are mystified. From what Weinberg says, and I've heard from other physicists, when you get to the root of the issue they just won't accept a multiverse theory. It has profound philosophical consequences, so I guess they go looking for ways to make their understanding of QM fit their strongly held preconceptions. Some avoid this fact you just mentioned, but others fight the Born rule derivations or wrongly apply Occam's Razor or have more original objections.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > they just won't accept a multiverse theory They don't have to. But they do have to accept that entanglement and measurement are the same physical phenomenon.
    - akvadrako 10y ago
      These things are not unrelated :) If you accept that there is only the wave function as in the bare formalism, either an infinity of worlds or zero worlds, like in QIT, are the logical outcomes. But I am not saying they "have to" - I'm saying that is their reason for not accepting the bare formalism.
      - lisper 10y ago
        > These things are not unrelated :) If you accept that there is only the wave function as in the bare formalism, either an infinity of worlds or zero worlds, like in QIT, are the logical outcomes. Yep. > But I am not saying they "have to" - I'm saying that is their reason for not accepting the bare formalism. Well, OK, but then the burden is on them to come up with something better. QM is one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories of all time. If you want to call yourself a scientist you can't legitimately reject it just because it doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
        akvadrako 10y ago
        Maybe I agree with you, but science is built on philosophy, which is not rigorous - but based on fuzzy feelings of what is right. The fact that we accept QM because it predicts the outcome of experiments is philosophy. So I could theoretically imagine someone holding the belief in our universe being what it seems higher than mathematical sense. Yet my primary point is physicists are just human and have all the same irrational tendencies as the rest of us. You can't ignore their feelings if you hope to convince them of something.
        lisper 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

I am absolutely not religiously convinced that QIT is the only true explanation. In fact, I explicitly say at the end of my talk that it is not, that multiple-worlds is equally valid, and which you choose is a matter of personal preference. But if want to argue that no solution exists (and this is Weinberg's claim) then you have to consider all of the solutions on the table, and Weinberg does not. He deliberately ignores the fundamental (and IMHO ultimately clarifying) fact that entanglement and measurement are intimately related (and are in fact the same physical phenomenon). It is entirely unsurprising that anyone who ignores this fact ends up believing that there is a big mystery. But in fact there is no big mystery. There are only people who are mystified because they are ignoring (or ignorant of) this crucial fact.

akvadrako 10y ago
> There are only people who are mystified because they are ignoring (or ignorant of) this crucial fact. I don't think that's the only reason people are mystified. From what Weinberg says, and I've heard from other physicists, when you get to the root of the issue they just won't accept a multiverse theory. It has profound philosophical consequences, so I guess they go looking for ways to make their understanding of QM fit their strongly held preconceptions. Some avoid this fact you just mentioned, but others fight the Born rule derivations or wrongly apply Occam's Razor or have more original objections.
- lisper 10y ago
  > they just won't accept a multiverse theory They don't have to. But they do have to accept that entanglement and measurement are the same physical phenomenon.
  - akvadrako 10y ago
    These things are not unrelated :) If you accept that there is only the wave function as in the bare formalism, either an infinity of worlds or zero worlds, like in QIT, are the logical outcomes. But I am not saying they "have to" - I'm saying that is their reason for not accepting the bare formalism.
    - lisper 10y ago
      > These things are not unrelated :) If you accept that there is only the wave function as in the bare formalism, either an infinity of worlds or zero worlds, like in QIT, are the logical outcomes. Yep. > But I am not saying they "have to" - I'm saying that is their reason for not accepting the bare formalism. Well, OK, but then the burden is on them to come up with something better. QM is one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories of all time. If you want to call yourself a scientist you can't legitimately reject it just because it doesn't make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
      - akvadrako 10y ago
        Maybe I agree with you, but science is built on philosophy, which is not rigorous - but based on fuzzy feelings of what is right. The fact that we accept QM because it predicts the outcome of experiments is philosophy. So I could theoretically imagine someone holding the belief in our universe being what it seems higher than mathematical sense. Yet my primary point is physicists are just human and have all the same irrational tendencies as the rest of us. You can't ignore their feelings if you hope to convince them of something.
        lisper 10y ago