4 ms·

I haven't read this guy's work but this interview makes it sound pretty ridiculous. First, he just ignores the bohmian and GRW interpretations of QM that are v

by lg 18y ago

I haven't read this guy's work but this interview makes it sound pretty ridiculous. First, he just ignores the bohmian and GRW interpretations of QM that are very popular right now. Next, he seems to ignore interpretations like many-minds because "physicists agree that there's an external reality" which is presumably similar to what we see, and not actually in a big superposition. So for the sake of according with physicists' intuitions, he posits various hierarchies of physical worlds. And then, it turns out that these worlds are actually made out of "math," whatever that means, but which certainly doesn't accord with physicists' intuitions. So what's the point? The other theories on offer are far simpler than this bait-n-switch.

sah 18y ago
Do you have good links for bohmian, GRW, and many-minds?
- lg 18y ago
  There are the relevant wikipedia entries, but if you want more detail... http://www.jstor.org/page/termsConfirm.jsp?redirectUri=/stable/pdfplus/188499.pdf http://www.jstor.org/page/termsConfirm.jsp?redirectUri=/stab... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citebase.org%2Ffulltext%3Fformat%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%26identifier%3Doai%253AarXiv.org%253A0711.0035&ei=CDNYSOfaKoio8ASS49WFCQ&usg=AFQjCNGPaJh8pbOidmFogmWTnQtor5jqqA&sig2=utq1sZiuVRTcAaU5pndvvg http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=h... edit: this might be better for GRW http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406094v2 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406094v2 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lps.uci.edu%2Fhome%2Ffac-staff%2Ffaculty%2Fbarrett%2FManyMindsManyWorlds.pdf&ei=iDNYSN7kJ5yW8wSLpMGTCQ&usg=AFQjCNEbY9mKjxmMLz4uBnPb0FMum2ZHdQ&sig2=1MrKcnTCw94O7-h9jp-MGg http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=h...
rokhayakebe 18y ago
First, he just ignores ....very popular right now. Next, he seems to ignore..... many-minds because "physicists agree that there's an external reality" ... So for the sake of according with physicists' intuitions,.... doesn't accord with physicists' intuitions You should applaud him. To discover or innovate you must "ignore" and make "no assumptions" nor "judgements" only make "observations". Only a very few people do this and sadly that is why most discoveries and breakthrough are made by accident.
- lg 18y ago
  Right... but you shouldn't ignore something that posits fewer entities than your theory yet has the same explanatory power. And you also shouldn't posit something for reason X and then posit something else that undercuts reason X, because that's inconsistent.

by lg 18y ago

sah 18y ago

Do you have good links for bohmian, GRW, and many-minds?

lg 18y ago
There are the relevant wikipedia entries, but if you want more detail... http://www.jstor.org/page/termsConfirm.jsp?redirectUri=/stable/pdfplus/188499.pdf http://www.jstor.org/page/termsConfirm.jsp?redirectUri=/stab... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citebase.org%2Ffulltext%3Fformat%3Dapplication%252Fpdf%26identifier%3Doai%253AarXiv.org%253A0711.0035&ei=CDNYSOfaKoio8ASS49WFCQ&usg=AFQjCNGPaJh8pbOidmFogmWTnQtor5jqqA&sig2=utq1sZiuVRTcAaU5pndvvg http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=5&url=h... edit: this might be better for GRW http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406094v2 http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406094v2 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lps.uci.edu%2Fhome%2Ffac-staff%2Ffaculty%2Fbarrett%2FManyMindsManyWorlds.pdf&ei=iDNYSN7kJ5yW8wSLpMGTCQ&usg=AFQjCNEbY9mKjxmMLz4uBnPb0FMum2ZHdQ&sig2=1MrKcnTCw94O7-h9jp-MGg http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=h...

rokhayakebe 18y ago

First, he just ignores ....very popular right now. Next, he seems to ignore..... many-minds because "physicists agree that there's an external reality" ... So for the sake of according with physicists' intuitions,.... doesn't accord with physicists' intuitions You should applaud him. To discover or innovate you must "ignore" and make "no assumptions" nor "judgements" only make "observations". Only a very few people do this and sadly that is why most discoveries and breakthrough are made by accident.

lg 18y ago
Right... but you shouldn't ignore something that posits fewer entities than your theory yet has the same explanatory power. And you also shouldn't posit something for reason X and then posit something else that undercuts reason X, because that's inconsistent.