4 ms·
You're either getting caught up in the incidental religious reference, or failed to interpret Scott's conciseness. See this comment for elaboration on exactly w
by platz 5y ago
You're either getting caught up in the incidental religious reference, or failed to interpret Scott's conciseness. See this comment for elaboration on exactly what kind of counterfactual Scott is asking https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30117928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30117928 . He's asking about a hypothetical alternative in a very specific way, which is to see whether it sheds any light on the logical foundation of QM, not just to consider alternatives for the sake of considering them in themselves.
Scott's aim is to understand QM better.
- cannabis_sam 5y agoAlso, can you at least attempt to mathematically explain a QM+“god” argument?
- cannabis_sam 5y ago>he's asking about a hypothetical alternative in a very specific way, which is to see whether it sheds any light on the logical foundation of QM Could easily be done without any references to an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent concept with exactly zero scientific evidence. Even worse the whole concept of God literally defies logic, so mixing god into this discussion is laughable, if it didn’t come from an authority in the field of QM. I have a lot of respect for Scott, but IMHO he would be more persuasive if he left his religious beliefs out of this argument. >Scott's aim is to understand QM better. How does referencing god help with this endeavor? Btw, the comment you linked commits the exact same fallacy of assuming anthropomorphic qualities behind whatever created the universe…