4 ms·

I don't buy it: The point of looking for an interpretation is to find a deeper, more detailed theory, or model that explains the QM observations, and perhaps mo

I don't buy it: The point of looking for an interpretation is to find a deeper, more detailed theory, or model that explains the QM observations, and perhaps more. Here's an analogy: > The sun and stars trace arcs in the sky. One interpretation is the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun and stars move around it. Another is the sun is at the enter, and the earth and stars move around it. I can predict where the sun will be at any time of day, and day of the year based on these observational charts. The motion of celestial bodies is what it is, and doesn't need an interpretation The flaw here is that by understanding more deeply what's going on with this analogy, we can learn so much more about the cosmos, like explaining the motion of planets etc etc. By not seeking an interpretation of quantum mechanics' observations, we limit ourselves.

Kranar 6y ago
There's no particular reason to think that an overarching interpretation of quantum mechanics will provide a deeper understanding of it compared to the strict formalism. People can come up with metaphors to assist in teaching it and there can be numerous such metaphors that are useful depending on what specific aspect is being understood. Furthermore I don't agree that people are limiting themselves because of a lack of an interpretation, on the contrary my personal observation is that people are limited precisely because they either seek an interpretation or are clinging to one.
- the__alchemist 6y ago
  Why do you draw the line here, at QM, as a boundary of knowledge? This may be the case, and is a common opinion, but why is this special, compared to various other theories we have in physics and other sciences? Historically, this line of thinking is common in science. You might be right here; science has advanced far in the last century, but I urge you to exercise skepticism that we've really hit the bottom. Nearly all claims of this type historically have been wrong!
mef51 6y ago
seeking an interpretation is what leads you to the zen anti-interpretation. You learn and learn and start to understand the things you've learned weren't meaningful. > the endpoint where you intuitively understand exactly what a Many-Worlder, Copenhagenist, or Bohmian would say about any given issue, and also how they’d respond to each other, and how they’d respond to the responses, etc. but after years of study and effort you’ve returned to the situation of the baby, who just sees the thing for what it is.
esperent 6y ago
> One interpretation is the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun and stars move around it. Another is the sun is at the enter Then along comes relativity theory and says that both of these are equally right. There is no "center" and therefore when making calculations you should just pick whatever center - frame of reference, that is - makes the calculations simpler. For example, you'll have a much easier time doing the math of planetary motion if you pick the sun as your frame of reference, but you could pick the earth if you wanted to. However, if you want to calculate the movements of stars in the Milky Way, you should no longer use the sun as your frame of reference - instead, use the center of the galaxy.
- prox 6y ago
  But you could, if you wanted to? At least by your analogy?
  - esperent 6y ago
    Yes, you could, in theory, although the math would probably be so complex you could never solve it. This isn't an analogy though, it's a direct consequence of relativity theory. It's the reason the word "relativity" is in the name.
- antonvs 6y ago
  It's true that there's no universal center, and relativity supports this. However, dropping the idea of a universal center, it's false that the Earth is the center of the solar system, i.e. the other major objects in the solar system don't revolve around the Earth, even though it's possible to produce a consistent Earth-centric model that works like that. Relativity doesn't say that both an Earth-centric and solar-barycentric models are equally correct, since the Earth-centric model is not an inertial frame, and Earth's contribution to spacetime curvature is one of the smaller ones. Both special and general relativity allow us to draw reliable conclusions about which models better represent reality, as opposed to just making accurate predictions. As such, this example provides better support for the idea that interpretations matter, than that they don't. It suggests that the situation with quantum interpretations may well be similar. You can make accurate predictions under any sufficiently complete interpretation, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an interpretation that's a better fit to reality than others. We may just lack the ability to determine that yet. Aaronson's take is similar to the "shut up and calculate" take in the sense that it explicitly ignores or rejects the question here. It's an anti-knowledge position - it's saying we should be happy with what we already know, and simply work within that framework, ignoring deeper questions. It's the position of an engineer rather than a fundamental research scientist.
bawolff 6y ago
> The flaw here is that by understanding more deeply what's going on with this analogy, we can learn so much more about the cosmos, like explaining the motion of planets etc etc. By not seeking an interpretation of quantum mechanics' observations, we limit ourselves. But the sun being the center of the universe is a physical theory. It makes testable predictions. We can learn something about the universe from such a theory. On the other hand, most of the interpretations of quantum mechanics are metaphysical theories closer to religion than science. They do not make testable predictions or allow us to learn about the cosmos. They may be interesting thought experiments but they teach us as much about quantum mechanics as debating heaven and hell teach us about death. [IANAP]
- intrasight 6y ago
  It occurred to me while reading Scott's blog article that a very interesting idea for a SciFi novel would be to explore a future society where are current religions are replaced with these QM religions.
  - why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
    Reminds me - what happened to the Church of String, I mean String theory? IIRC that was the ultimate "nothing can ever be tested, not even a tiniest part" theory
    - ojnabieoot 6y ago
      This is very unfair to string theorists, who a) are almost universally honest about the empirical difficulties in their field, b) are reasonably exploring the possible theoretical options to hopefully create testable predictions for a future experiment/telescope (science is hard) c) have made major advances in mathematics, with important (and testable) applications outside of string theory I feel like you’re projecting the attitude of one sometimes unscrupulous scientist (Brian Greene) onto the entire field. Although laypeople’s fascination with string theory has died down it is still a vital and vibrant field.

Kranar 6y ago

There's no particular reason to think that an overarching interpretation of quantum mechanics will provide a deeper understanding of it compared to the strict formalism. People can come up with metaphors to assist in teaching it and there can be numerous such metaphors that are useful depending on what specific aspect is being understood. Furthermore I don't agree that people are limiting themselves because of a lack of an interpretation, on the contrary my personal observation is that people are limited precisely because they either seek an interpretation or are clinging to one.

the__alchemist 6y ago
Why do you draw the line here, at QM, as a boundary of knowledge? This may be the case, and is a common opinion, but why is this special, compared to various other theories we have in physics and other sciences? Historically, this line of thinking is common in science. You might be right here; science has advanced far in the last century, but I urge you to exercise skepticism that we've really hit the bottom. Nearly all claims of this type historically have been wrong!

mef51 6y ago

seeking an interpretation is what leads you to the zen anti-interpretation. You learn and learn and start to understand the things you've learned weren't meaningful. > the endpoint where you intuitively understand exactly what a Many-Worlder, Copenhagenist, or Bohmian would say about any given issue, and also how they’d respond to each other, and how they’d respond to the responses, etc. but after years of study and effort you’ve returned to the situation of the baby, who just sees the thing for what it is.

esperent 6y ago

> One interpretation is the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun and stars move around it. Another is the sun is at the enter Then along comes relativity theory and says that both of these are equally right. There is no "center" and therefore when making calculations you should just pick whatever center - frame of reference, that is - makes the calculations simpler. For example, you'll have a much easier time doing the math of planetary motion if you pick the sun as your frame of reference, but you could pick the earth if you wanted to. However, if you want to calculate the movements of stars in the Milky Way, you should no longer use the sun as your frame of reference - instead, use the center of the galaxy.

prox 6y ago
But you could, if you wanted to? At least by your analogy?
- esperent 6y ago
  Yes, you could, in theory, although the math would probably be so complex you could never solve it. This isn't an analogy though, it's a direct consequence of relativity theory. It's the reason the word "relativity" is in the name.
antonvs 6y ago
It's true that there's no universal center, and relativity supports this. However, dropping the idea of a universal center, it's false that the Earth is the center of the solar system, i.e. the other major objects in the solar system don't revolve around the Earth, even though it's possible to produce a consistent Earth-centric model that works like that. Relativity doesn't say that both an Earth-centric and solar-barycentric models are equally correct, since the Earth-centric model is not an inertial frame, and Earth's contribution to spacetime curvature is one of the smaller ones. Both special and general relativity allow us to draw reliable conclusions about which models better represent reality, as opposed to just making accurate predictions. As such, this example provides better support for the idea that interpretations matter, than that they don't. It suggests that the situation with quantum interpretations may well be similar. You can make accurate predictions under any sufficiently complete interpretation, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an interpretation that's a better fit to reality than others. We may just lack the ability to determine that yet. Aaronson's take is similar to the "shut up and calculate" take in the sense that it explicitly ignores or rejects the question here. It's an anti-knowledge position - it's saying we should be happy with what we already know, and simply work within that framework, ignoring deeper questions. It's the position of an engineer rather than a fundamental research scientist.

bawolff 6y ago

> The flaw here is that by understanding more deeply what's going on with this analogy, we can learn so much more about the cosmos, like explaining the motion of planets etc etc. By not seeking an interpretation of quantum mechanics' observations, we limit ourselves. But the sun being the center of the universe is a physical theory. It makes testable predictions. We can learn something about the universe from such a theory. On the other hand, most of the interpretations of quantum mechanics are metaphysical theories closer to religion than science. They do not make testable predictions or allow us to learn about the cosmos. They may be interesting thought experiments but they teach us as much about quantum mechanics as debating heaven and hell teach us about death. [IANAP]

intrasight 6y ago
It occurred to me while reading Scott's blog article that a very interesting idea for a SciFi novel would be to explore a future society where are current religions are replaced with these QM religions.
- why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
  Reminds me - what happened to the Church of String, I mean String theory? IIRC that was the ultimate "nothing can ever be tested, not even a tiniest part" theory
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    This is very unfair to string theorists, who a) are almost universally honest about the empirical difficulties in their field, b) are reasonably exploring the possible theoretical options to hopefully create testable predictions for a future experiment/telescope (science is hard) c) have made major advances in mathematics, with important (and testable) applications outside of string theory I feel like you’re projecting the attitude of one sometimes unscrupulous scientist (Brian Greene) onto the entire field. Although laypeople’s fascination with string theory has died down it is still a vital and vibrant field.