5 ms·

First, thank you for responding. I’m not saying there’s anything special about our mind, it’s just a function of our mind. And is it misinterpretation or is i

First, thank you for responding. I’m not saying there’s anything special about our mind, it’s just a function of our mind. And is it misinterpretation or is it my interpretation that you disagree with? How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? I do not believe, for example, that the moon exist, only because I look at it. I think it exists in a probabilistic state in that probabilistic state turns to certainty when I look at it. But that is only my certainty. How do I share my mind’s interpretation of what the moon looks like with someone else? Exactly? I can’t, it’s impossible. The moon both exist, and does not exist at the same time. And what I mean it does not exist. I mean it does not exist in any sense of certainty. Hence the moon is a wave function. The fact that my brain in your brain can collapse the way function in an apparent 100% similarity provides no proof that the moon exists in a single state outside of our own minds.

consilient 3y ago
> How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? Photons are not particles or waves. They are similar to classical particles in certain respects and similar to classical waves in other respects, but what they're really like is a localized excitation of the electromagnetic field. Because that's what they are. Physics by analogy simply does not work. If you understand the math, analogies can occasionally be a helpful signpost. If you don't, they're worse than useless.
- goatlover 3y ago
  Depends the interpretation. Bell thought the most straight forward conclusion was that quantum systems are both quantum waves and particles, where the wave guides the particle (Pilot Wave/Bohmian Mechanics). In MWI, particles are superpositions of every possible quantum value. We can understand that as branching worlds thanks to entanglement and decoherence. Saying we can't understand the mathematical formalism is a kind of Copenhagen interpretation.

consilient 3y ago

> How can one rationalize the fact that a photon can be a wave and a particle at the same time? Photons are not particles or waves. They are similar to classical particles in certain respects and similar to classical waves in other respects, but what they're really like is a localized excitation of the electromagnetic field. Because that's what they are. Physics by analogy simply does not work. If you understand the math, analogies can occasionally be a helpful signpost. If you don't, they're worse than useless.

goatlover 3y ago
Depends the interpretation. Bell thought the most straight forward conclusion was that quantum systems are both quantum waves and particles, where the wave guides the particle (Pilot Wave/Bohmian Mechanics). In MWI, particles are superpositions of every possible quantum value. We can understand that as branching worlds thanks to entanglement and decoherence. Saying we can't understand the mathematical formalism is a kind of Copenhagen interpretation.