3 ms·
Very little about QM is intuitive at the ontological level; what matters is that it's logical at the mathematical and practical level. Lasers work, the math wor
by M_Grey 10y ago
Very little about QM is intuitive at the ontological level; what matters is that it's logical at the mathematical and practical level. Lasers work, the math works, the ontology doesn't.
- platz 10y agosure, but I'm not sure we should be saying that it doesn't have an ontology (even if it is a very weird one), just because the only model that we've been able to come up with thus far is mostly a calculational one (as QM "calculates" probabilities).
- M_Grey 10y agoIt doesn't have an ontology with a current prayer of being falsifies, which is the same thing if you're interested in the science and not the popsci. Exceptions exist, hence AdS/CFT correspondence and M-Theory, but they are exceptions. Even then, all that can be said is various tools have been created with value beyond their fields, not that they're in any way falsifiable yet. At any rate, "intuitive" strikes me as a bad test for QM.
- mirimir 10y agoYeah, that's why QM and I parted ways. I'm too committed to intuition. So it goes.
- M_Grey 10y agoI mean, when you say that you parted ways, did you go over to something like deBB?
- mirimir 10y agoBiology :)
- M_Grey 10y agoAhhh, that makes a lot of sense; big warm systems that are still fascinating, but definitely not dominated by QM.
- mirimir 10y agoYeah. But in retrospect, QM chaos seems to underlie a lot of biology, from evolution to neural development to immune response. But there's been no need to think much about QM except as a source of randomness. So far, anyway.
- M_Grey 10y agoFingers crossed At the very least, if QM emerges into your end of things, it should do so in clearly defined ways, and at scales/energies which have some hope of being probed.