3 ms·

I'm not sure if you actually don't understand quantum mechanics, or if you do but are expressing your point extremely poorly, but "You and Bob, by virtue of hav

by a1369209993 6y ago

I'm not sure if you actually don't understand quantum mechanics, or if you do but are expressing your point extremely poorly, but "You and Bob, by virtue of having interacted with the same measurement apparatus, have become mutually entangled, and that is what a classically correlated system is." is the objectively real physical reality. The fact that measurements are repeatable is, in fact, because they are giving us information about that specific kind of objectively real physical reality - the fact that that reality is, at base, better described by quantum wavefunctions rather than trying to shoehorn it into a model resembling tiny billiard balls bouncing around only seems like a problem if you allow your brain's myriad evolution-induced biases and deficiencies to overwhelm your capacity for abstract reasoning. (Like, admittedly, Einstein seems to have.)

dang 6y ago
Please make your substantive points without personal swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lisper 6y ago
  FWIW, I didn't take offense at this. The truth is it's probably a little of both. But in my defense, I will just say that if I failed to explain it well, I would not be the first.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > if I failed to explain it well, I would not be the first. This, at least, is definitely true. If anything, the fact that you don't posit magically violating pretty much every conservation law in the history of physics (Copenhagen interpretation/collapse postulate) or magically duplicating the entire universe (Many worlds interpretation), arguably puts you ahead of most actual quantum physicists (albeit, one hopes, more on the explanation front than the understanding one), although my estimation of that relative to the latter might just be a artifact having a easier time imputing metaphorical status to "illusion" than to "world". (Copenhagen gets no such excuse, though, so you're still ahead of a plurality of actual quantum physicists.)

dang 6y ago

Please make your substantive points without personal swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lisper 6y ago
FWIW, I didn't take offense at this. The truth is it's probably a little of both. But in my defense, I will just say that if I failed to explain it well, I would not be the first.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > if I failed to explain it well, I would not be the first. This, at least, is definitely true. If anything, the fact that you don't posit magically violating pretty much every conservation law in the history of physics (Copenhagen interpretation/collapse postulate) or magically duplicating the entire universe (Many worlds interpretation), arguably puts you ahead of most actual quantum physicists (albeit, one hopes, more on the explanation front than the understanding one), although my estimation of that relative to the latter might just be a artifact having a easier time imputing metaphorical status to "illusion" than to "world". (Copenhagen gets no such excuse, though, so you're still ahead of a plurality of actual quantum physicists.)