3 ms·
Why isn’t debating of the significance of quantum mechanics “real work”?
by wannabedev22 4y ago
Why isn’t debating of the significance of quantum mechanics “real work”?
- whatshisface 4y agoBecause some debates are like, "Given the proposition 'x or not x', is x true?"
- wannabedev22 4y agoI’m not sure about what precisely you’re referring to. There is an entire school of mathematics that dismisses the law of excluded of middle and I’m not sure why that would not be “real work”.
- whatshisface 4y agoThere's no system of logic where 'x or not x is true' implies x.
- j16sdiz 4y agoThe example you gave is not specific enough to guess what you are referring to.
- whatshisface 4y agoI am referring to the fact that it is possible for indeterminacy to be an absolute fact and not a temporary artifact of incomplete development.
- goldenkey 4y agoI can make that an axiom of my system. It'll cause explosion and is a next to useless system but it's still a system.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoWhy though? MWI works just fine.
- whatshisface 4y agoSo does Copenhagen. That's why you can't choose between them.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoDidn't you say you can't tell whether randomness is true or due to incomplete interpretation? If Copenhagen is incomplete, then it doesn't work, only its one part works - the Schrodinger equation.
- whatshisface 4y agoMWI doesn't allow you to predict what you will end up observing, so it is just as incomplete.
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoIt doesn't predict collapse if that's what you mean, because collapse doesn't happen, but it predicts that the result of observation is eigenvalue, and the prediction is consistent and matches observation.