4 ms·
Reality has no obligation to conform to what is intuitive. The concepts of superposition and entanglement both have a referent (even if we're a long way off on
by Schroedingersat 4y ago
Reality has no obligation to conform to what is intuitive. The concepts of superposition and entanglement both have a referent (even if we're a long way off on the correct model) and are sufficient to explain what you observe about your cat.
This is the same deference to intuition that would lead to assuming there's a luminiferous aether or that the sun rotates around the world.
It obvious that our models are not complete, but clinging to collapse (which is incredibly egotistical) or asserting some bohmian mechanics-like hidden information theory (which is gnome physics) is much more small minded and dogmatic than "idunno, maybe it's completely different or maybe it's the simplest combination of the things we have fairly strong evidence for". I do agree that getting all mystical about it like brian cox does when public speaking is idiotic and dishonest though.
- lamontcg 4y agoYou've fallen back on nothing more than thinly-veiled personal attacks to back up your opinion.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoCalling out the inherent absurdities in the constant attacks on the character of anyone following the evidence or remaining agnostic isn't a personal attack. Maybe the fact that you feel attacked when seeing a pale reflection of what you are spouting should tell you something. If you believe there need to be extra moving parts in your theory without evidence, that's fine. Calling someone who doesn't religious is where you start to sound like every crank in history that couldn't wrap their head around heliocentricism or relativity.
- tome 4y agoSorry, what does "gnome physics" mean?
- Schroedingersat 4y agohttps://www.refsmmat.com/articles/gnome-physics.html https://www.refsmmat.com/articles/gnome-physics.html