3 ms·

> the way we are supposed to tie the math to physical observations Again, that's a matter of interpretation. The different quantum interpretations say differen

• tsimionescu 3y ago
  > Again, that's a matter of interpretation. The different quantum interpretations say different things here. In my view, a physical theory has two parts: a mathematical model, and a series of rules to relate the model physical experiments. For example, the theory of Newtonian mechanics isn't just F=m×a, it also includes the observation of how to measure the mass of an object and its speed etc. Without these extra rules, you just have a mathematical theory, not a physical theory. > Yes, you can. Look up Quantum Darwinism. I did, and as far as I understand (e.g. from here [0]), it is an exciting candidate for explaining the Born rule based only on the other equations, but it's not fully accepted and it has its own limitations so far. Still, very interesting, thanks for pointing me to it. > PS. throwing "nuh uhs" back to a professional in the field is not appropriate. Get your respect in order. I did not throw a "nuh uh", I explained what I looked for and why I came to my conclusion, including a citation from a professor in the field. I think that's about as far from disrespecting you as I can get, while still disagreeing. Not to mention, I didn't know you were a professional in the field. [0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-explain-objective-reality-passes-first-tests-20190722/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-darwinism-an-idea-to-...