3 ms·

This is disappointing. The title prompted a science (or, maybe, philosophy of science) question, but the article give only applications. Maths don't have to b

This is disappointing. The title prompted a science (or, maybe, philosophy of science) question, but the article give only applications. Maths don't have to be real to be useful.

phkahler 3y ago
Yeah, I was hoping for something more along the lines of "are wave functions real".
- hcks 3y ago
  To answer your question they aren’t
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    How do you know? PBR theorem justifies the idea that the wavefunction is ontological rather than epistemological
em500 3y ago
The mundane answer to the philosophical question is that the frequency domain is not any less or more "real" than the time domain; they're different mathematical abstractions of change. Just like base-10 numbers are not any more or less "real" than base-2 or base-8. Carthesian coordinate locations are not any more or less "real" than polar coordinate locations. Some representations are just more convenient for specific calculations than others (mostly by simplifying specific calculations).