3 ms·

> I will view discussions of the multiverse as akin to medieval philosophers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Interestingly, this is

> I will view discussions of the multiverse as akin to medieval philosophers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Interestingly, this is almost certainly anti-catholic protestant agitprop that lost context. As such, the question never seems to have been asked; similar questions of extreme minutae were widely parodied but were probably never a matter of actual debate or discussion by scholastics.

bawolff 7y ago
Similarly, how many actual physicists actually seriously argue about interpretations of quantum mechanics? I'm not a physicist but i'm pretty sure its a thing more talked about by philosophers and the popular press than actual physicists. Not that there is anything wrong with philosophizing and inquiring into metaphysical questions.
- archgoon 7y ago
  Sufficiently few that it is beginning to be said by a small number of physicists that it is a point of embarrassment that the Measurement Problem is about as unresolved as when it first came up a hundred years ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-ph...
  - bawolff 7y ago
    The nytimes article you linked has the quote: > But what is the wave function? Is it a complete and comprehensive representation of the world? Or do we need additional physical quantities to fully capture reality, as Albert Einstein and others suspected? Or does the wave function have no direct connection with reality at all, merely characterizing our personal ignorance about what we will eventually measure in our experiments? Isn't this really just asking about scientific realism? Couldnt you say the same thing about any scientific concept? Instead of "what is the wave function", why not "what is an atom". I suspect the main difference is that earlier physical theories had a direct analogy to real life events. We could tell a story about the billard ball model of atoms and we can imagine that in our heads. I have no idea how to imagine a superposition of states. Without the ability to analogize it, i suspect humans intuitively assume its wrong. But lack of imagination hardly seems like a logical reason to reject something. On the other hand, the question of how/when/why (non-metaphysically) a superposition collapses into a single state, seem much more scientific, and that part of the measurement problem seems like a worthy target of scientific investigation. Disclaimer: iana physicist nor really know anything beyond basics about quatum mechanics.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- walleeee 7y ago
  > I'm not a physicist but i'm pretty sure its a thing more talked about by philosophers and the popular press than actual physicists. Right, hence the popular aphorism (among physicists): "Shut up and calculate."

bawolff 7y ago

Similarly, how many actual physicists actually seriously argue about interpretations of quantum mechanics? I'm not a physicist but i'm pretty sure its a thing more talked about by philosophers and the popular press than actual physicists. Not that there is anything wrong with philosophizing and inquiring into metaphysical questions.

archgoon 7y ago
Sufficiently few that it is beginning to be said by a small number of physicists that it is a point of embarrassment that the Measurement Problem is about as unresolved as when it first came up a hundred years ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-ph...
- bawolff 7y ago
  The nytimes article you linked has the quote: > But what is the wave function? Is it a complete and comprehensive representation of the world? Or do we need additional physical quantities to fully capture reality, as Albert Einstein and others suspected? Or does the wave function have no direct connection with reality at all, merely characterizing our personal ignorance about what we will eventually measure in our experiments? Isn't this really just asking about scientific realism? Couldnt you say the same thing about any scientific concept? Instead of "what is the wave function", why not "what is an atom". I suspect the main difference is that earlier physical theories had a direct analogy to real life events. We could tell a story about the billard ball model of atoms and we can imagine that in our heads. I have no idea how to imagine a superposition of states. Without the ability to analogize it, i suspect humans intuitively assume its wrong. But lack of imagination hardly seems like a logical reason to reject something. On the other hand, the question of how/when/why (non-metaphysically) a superposition collapses into a single state, seem much more scientific, and that part of the measurement problem seems like a worthy target of scientific investigation. Disclaimer: iana physicist nor really know anything beyond basics about quatum mechanics.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
walleeee 7y ago
> I'm not a physicist but i'm pretty sure its a thing more talked about by philosophers and the popular press than actual physicists. Right, hence the popular aphorism (among physicists): "Shut up and calculate."