5 ms·

No, my question was: why did Copenhagen become generally accepted? You're saying: it just is, deal with it. That's unsatisfactory. Copenhagen proponents never s

No, my question was: why did Copenhagen become generally accepted? You're saying: it just is, deal with it. That's unsatisfactory. Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority.

mistermann 2y ago
> Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority. That is correct. Physics inherits that from culture, which runs on-top of reality, and that is how reality works. Personally, I agree with you, but reality is consensus based. Deal with it (develop a better story, or meme - "Shut up and calculate" seems effective despite it being in no way whatsoever a proof of anything...try and come up with something catchy like that).
sebzim4500 2y ago
Pretty sure they are a plurality, not the majority.
jahnu 2y ago
Copenhagen doesn’t even seem to be well defined unlike Pilot Wave, Objective Collapse, GRW…
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
If I understand correctly, Copenhagen became generally accepted because it was around for several decades before many-worlds. > You're saying: it just is, deal with it. That's unsatisfactory. Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority. I'm saying that Copenhagen is the de facto default, no matter what you think should be. If you want that to change, you have to change peoples' minds. These being scientists, you typically need some evidence to make them change their minds - they're not going to do it just because you think they should. Without evidence (impossible in principle, if Copenhagen and many-worlds make the same predictions), you can argue that one shouldn't have a firm stance on this, since both interpretations give the same results, and there is no experimental way of discerning one from the other. (This looks a lot like "shut up and calculate".) Or you can argue that the philosophical position of many-worlds is more "parsimonious" or better in some other sense, but that's philosophy, and that doesn't persuade scientists all that well. TL;DR: If you want people to move from where they are to where they aren't, give them a reason. If you don't, don't be surprised when they don't move.

mistermann 2y ago

> Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority. That is correct. Physics inherits that from culture, which runs on-top of reality, and that is how reality works. Personally, I agree with you, but reality is consensus based. Deal with it (develop a better story, or meme - "Shut up and calculate" seems effective despite it being in no way whatsoever a proof of anything...try and come up with something catchy like that).

sebzim4500 2y ago

Pretty sure they are a plurality, not the majority.

jahnu 2y ago

Copenhagen doesn’t even seem to be well defined unlike Pilot Wave, Objective Collapse, GRW…

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

If I understand correctly, Copenhagen became generally accepted because it was around for several decades before many-worlds. > You're saying: it just is, deal with it. That's unsatisfactory. Copenhagen proponents never seem to have to defend their stance, and you're telling me they don't have to because they're the majority. I'm saying that Copenhagen is the de facto default, no matter what you think should be. If you want that to change, you have to change peoples' minds. These being scientists, you typically need some evidence to make them change their minds - they're not going to do it just because you think they should. Without evidence (impossible in principle, if Copenhagen and many-worlds make the same predictions), you can argue that one shouldn't have a firm stance on this, since both interpretations give the same results, and there is no experimental way of discerning one from the other. (This looks a lot like "shut up and calculate".) Or you can argue that the philosophical position of many-worlds is more "parsimonious" or better in some other sense, but that's philosophy, and that doesn't persuade scientists all that well. TL;DR: If you want people to move from where they are to where they aren't, give them a reason. If you don't, don't be surprised when they don't move.