3 ms·
I think you misunderstand the post, he's not arguing against QM in any way at all, this isn't QM denial. He's just asking _why_ the universe is built that way.
by simonh 5y ago
I think you misunderstand the post, he's not arguing against QM in any way at all, this isn't QM denial. He's just asking _why_ the universe is built that way.
- Koshkin 5y agoI think you may have misunderstood GP's point. Isn't asking "why" equivalent to asking "what if not"? There is indeed a subtle, but still a difference, from "arguing against."
- amelius 5y agoYou need something like QM to explain chemistry. And you need chemistry to explain life. To make a comparison, the laws that determine the movement of celestial bodies are closer to classical physics. There is no order in these bodies: galaxies all look very different. But molecules all look very similar, thanks to QM. You need this property for life to exist (you need e.g. replication, which can only happen if things easily turn out to be the exactly same, as with molecules). Therefore, my question: show me a theory simpler than QM that can explain chemistry. And then we can talk.
- simonh 5y agoThere isn’t one. I’ll say it again, he isn’t doubting QM. That isn’t what this is about.