4 ms·

Would you mind either arguing for the superiority of that interpretation or showing flaws with the alternative I pointed out? I know that what you've stated is

Would you mind either arguing for the superiority of that interpretation or showing flaws with the alternative I pointed out? I know that what you've stated is nearly cannon at the moment, but the issue isn't actually settled, which is why a discussion of it here is still potentially interesting, and why merely re-asserting the supposed truth of the most common interpretation isn't. Edit: in other words, when you say: > The mistake in this line of thinking is in the tacit assumption that a quantum system possesses a certain property prior to or independent from a measurement. It does not. You are only asserting that's the case, not defending it. The rest of your post operates on the opposite, undefended assumption that a quantum system does not possess a certain property prior to or independent from a measurement.

Koshkin 9y ago
It is untenable even from a purely philosophical standpoint that we could bring all this classical baggage into the world of which we already know well enough to behave nothing like what we have seen before and hope that we would end up with something other than a mess in our understanding what is really going on. All we have ended up with is a theory telling us how a quantum system interacts with what we must think of as a classical object so we could conveniently, albeit probabilistically, extrapolate the notions (e.g. those of "properties") of the familiar classical world to the world that is and will forever remain out of reach to our senses.
- westoncb 9y ago
  If I understand correctly you're saying the interpretation I've pointed out is not tenable because it carries classical baggage, and yet we've already observed quantum systems to not behave classically, so if we proceed that way we get a mess. But the whole point of the alternative interpretation I pointed out is a way of reconciling the observations with an essentially classical world (at least in the sense that there is a single objective reality which exists independent of observation)—do you see a way in which it fails to do that? My understanding is that considering the probabilistic aspect of the theory to be modeling our knowledge of the system instead, successfully accounts for the fundamentally 'non-classical' observations. It just seems hasty to throw out such a seemingly well-supported hypothesis (single objective reality independent of viewer), if there are two effective interpretations, one of which conflicts with it, the other of which does not. From my reading, the primary reasons for the mainstream physics community having adopted the stance which competes with the 'objective reality' hypothesis (i.e. Many Worlds or Copenhagen interpretations), are historical accident and political, while the intrinsic merits of the alternatives are near equivalent.
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    You seem to be conflating 'being real', or 'objective', with 'being classical', or 'possessing measurable properties prior to measurement'. That is the mistake I was arguing against, and the Copenhagen interpretation is what keeps one from making it.
- EGreg 9y ago
  Wait, what? Since when is carrying classical baggage a minus? If we're going to play that game, I'll choose spooky action at a distance anyday, and say that space is just a strong correlation MOST of the time, but doesn't have to be ALL the time. I wonder how much classical baggage YOU bring by thinking Bell's inequality disproves something because nonlocal interactions are not possible. What's easier to imagine - correlations between particles far away or many universes which are not actually real in any sense you can define?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >What's easier to imagine - correlations between particles far away or many universes which are not actually real in any sense you can define? Many universes of course. At least that doesn't mess up with the workings and casuality of this universe.
    - EGreg 9y ago
      Yep called it - you want this universe to work classically. So I can claim to be the bigger out-of-the-box thinker. How is this any different than the multiverse theory as a non-explanation to the fine tuning? You simply push the problem elsewhere.

Koshkin 9y ago

It is untenable even from a purely philosophical standpoint that we could bring all this classical baggage into the world of which we already know well enough to behave nothing like what we have seen before and hope that we would end up with something other than a mess in our understanding what is really going on. All we have ended up with is a theory telling us how a quantum system interacts with what we must think of as a classical object so we could conveniently, albeit probabilistically, extrapolate the notions (e.g. those of "properties") of the familiar classical world to the world that is and will forever remain out of reach to our senses.

westoncb 9y ago
If I understand correctly you're saying the interpretation I've pointed out is not tenable because it carries classical baggage, and yet we've already observed quantum systems to not behave classically, so if we proceed that way we get a mess. But the whole point of the alternative interpretation I pointed out is a way of reconciling the observations with an essentially classical world (at least in the sense that there is a single objective reality which exists independent of observation)—do you see a way in which it fails to do that? My understanding is that considering the probabilistic aspect of the theory to be modeling our knowledge of the system instead, successfully accounts for the fundamentally 'non-classical' observations. It just seems hasty to throw out such a seemingly well-supported hypothesis (single objective reality independent of viewer), if there are two effective interpretations, one of which conflicts with it, the other of which does not. From my reading, the primary reasons for the mainstream physics community having adopted the stance which competes with the 'objective reality' hypothesis (i.e. Many Worlds or Copenhagen interpretations), are historical accident and political, while the intrinsic merits of the alternatives are near equivalent.
- Koshkin 9y ago
  You seem to be conflating 'being real', or 'objective', with 'being classical', or 'possessing measurable properties prior to measurement'. That is the mistake I was arguing against, and the Copenhagen interpretation is what keeps one from making it.
EGreg 9y ago
Wait, what? Since when is carrying classical baggage a minus? If we're going to play that game, I'll choose spooky action at a distance anyday, and say that space is just a strong correlation MOST of the time, but doesn't have to be ALL the time. I wonder how much classical baggage YOU bring by thinking Bell's inequality disproves something because nonlocal interactions are not possible. What's easier to imagine - correlations between particles far away or many universes which are not actually real in any sense you can define?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >What's easier to imagine - correlations between particles far away or many universes which are not actually real in any sense you can define? Many universes of course. At least that doesn't mess up with the workings and casuality of this universe.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    Yep called it - you want this universe to work classically. So I can claim to be the bigger out-of-the-box thinker. How is this any different than the multiverse theory as a non-explanation to the fine tuning? You simply push the problem elsewhere.