3 ms·

you act like I wasn't just talking with someone here on HN who was convinced we "live in a classical world" when in reality everything is governed by the same q

you act like I wasn't just talking with someone here on HN who was convinced we "live in a classical world" when in reality everything is governed by the same quantum physics on every scale.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> you act like I wasn't just talking with someone here on HN who was convinced we "live in a classical world" I didn't understand your original reply to my comment; now I understand why, I think. Perhaps I failed to express myself clearly? I didn't say anything about quantum vs. classical worlds; I made a remark about the purpose for which Herr Schroedinger devised his cat story. His purpose was the opposite of the purpose implied by the article. He thought that the absurdity of a cat being both alive and dead demonstrated the absurdity of a particle being in two states at the same time. That is, I was talking about Herr Schroedinger's opinions, not my own. IANAPP, but FWIW I'm convinced that quantum theory in the sense of evolution of the wave function is correct. I don't know of any convincing explanation of wave-function collapse as a result of "observation". I don't buy many-worlds, and "just shut up and solve the equations" doesn't cut it for me. So in fact I'm convinced that we don't live in a classical world.
- blueprint 4y ago
  no, no! it was an entirely different person here almost 2 wks ago who was arguing with me about whether quantum mechanics can be understood without the math, all while making claims that showed how little he knew of the topic. he might have been trolling anyway. In my reply to you I was merely agreeing, herr denton-scratch. many worlds doesnt (afaict) posit why/how branch selection even occurs so it's sort of incomplete IMO. wavefunction collapse doesn't seem to exist either, but rather is a result of entanglement with the observer. my personal guess is something like superdeterminism in principle but I keep an open mind. I suspect that there are some basic consequences/meanings of the existence of state/information and entanglement themselves which have been too subtle to have been seen as assumptions in the past, and I am slowly working on formalizing them.

you act like I wasn't just talking with someone here on HN who was convinced we "live in a classical world" when in reality everything is governed by the same quantum physics on every scale.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> you act like I wasn't just talking with someone here on HN who was convinced we "live in a classical world" I didn't understand your original reply to my comment; now I understand why, I think. Perhaps I failed to express myself clearly? I didn't say anything about quantum vs. classical worlds; I made a remark about the purpose for which Herr Schroedinger devised his cat story. His purpose was the opposite of the purpose implied by the article. He thought that the absurdity of a cat being both alive and dead demonstrated the absurdity of a particle being in two states at the same time. That is, I was talking about Herr Schroedinger's opinions, not my own. IANAPP, but FWIW I'm convinced that quantum theory in the sense of evolution of the wave function is correct. I don't know of any convincing explanation of wave-function collapse as a result of "observation". I don't buy many-worlds, and "just shut up and solve the equations" doesn't cut it for me. So in fact I'm convinced that we don't live in a classical world.

blueprint 4y ago
no, no! it was an entirely different person here almost 2 wks ago who was arguing with me about whether quantum mechanics can be understood without the math, all while making claims that showed how little he knew of the topic. he might have been trolling anyway. In my reply to you I was merely agreeing, herr denton-scratch. many worlds doesnt (afaict) posit why/how branch selection even occurs so it's sort of incomplete IMO. wavefunction collapse doesn't seem to exist either, but rather is a result of entanglement with the observer. my personal guess is something like superdeterminism in principle but I keep an open mind. I suspect that there are some basic consequences/meanings of the existence of state/information and entanglement themselves which have been too subtle to have been seen as assumptions in the past, and I am slowly working on formalizing them.