5 ms·

Just the opposite. Quantum mechanics is real. Classical mechanics is an approximation that holds for large scales. We're really attached to classical physics b

Just the opposite. Quantum mechanics is real. Classical mechanics is an approximation that holds for large scales. We're really attached to classical physics because we're macroscopic objects. Any observation we make will inherently be an aggregate that cannot support the delicate equilibria that characterize quantum superpositions. We actually do have a pretty good understanding of how that works. The implications of it are hard to stomach, but the mathematics of it is well understood and experimentally confirmed to a dozen decimal places. Where it contradicts our classical intuition, it is always quantum physics that wins out.

swayvil 2y ago
We're also really attached to the highly-focused way of looking at things, and thinking... And there are probably some other massive biases lurking there too.
Loughla 2y ago
>The implications of it are hard to stomach, What does that mean?
- jfengel 2y ago
  One way or another, part of the wave function is inaccessible. It's really hard to fit that into our expectations about the world, where the truth can be known. The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. What does it even mean? Interpretations of quantum mechanics try to shove that inaccessible part of the wave function into a place where we can feel comfortable about it. But they are all a serious blow to what we think of as reality.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    This is too interesting for me not to comment asking for more. I'm not a physicist so where should I go to if I want to keep reading?
    - Vecr 2y ago
      In QBism the wave function is "just" a tool, superdeterminism shoves everything to the initial state, Multiple Worlds puts most of it into the other "multiple worlds", various pilot wave theories put it into "guides", and there's probably stuff I'm missing.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > It's really hard to fit that into our expectations about the world, where the truth can be known. This is the sort of statement I expect from philosophers and not scientists. That may be your expectation, but it's not mine. I believe (with a high degree of confidence) that the best we ever have is a Bayesian confidence in any hypothesis. > The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. I think there's a big leap between "We can't test it" and "It's untestable". I am not confident that humans 1000 years from now will still be bound by quantum indeterminacy. What we now model as probability fields may be in fact the result of a deterministic process which we do not yet understand.
  - svieira 2y ago
    > The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. May I ask why? If it is true, why do you need to test it? Is your problem unknowable truths? Or something else?
- Vecr 2y ago
  Essentially MWI, but you can say the other worlds are "not real" if you like. Decoherence is continuous, so either you come up with a (somewhat arbitrary) threshold or say reality is continuous as well.

swayvil 2y ago

We're also really attached to the highly-focused way of looking at things, and thinking... And there are probably some other massive biases lurking there too.

Loughla 2y ago

>The implications of it are hard to stomach, What does that mean?

jfengel 2y ago
One way or another, part of the wave function is inaccessible. It's really hard to fit that into our expectations about the world, where the truth can be known. The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. What does it even mean? Interpretations of quantum mechanics try to shove that inaccessible part of the wave function into a place where we can feel comfortable about it. But they are all a serious blow to what we think of as reality.
- airstrike 2y ago
  This is too interesting for me not to comment asking for more. I'm not a physicist so where should I go to if I want to keep reading?
  - Vecr 2y ago
    In QBism the wave function is "just" a tool, superdeterminism shoves everything to the initial state, Multiple Worlds puts most of it into the other "multiple worlds", various pilot wave theories put it into "guides", and there's probably stuff I'm missing.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > It's really hard to fit that into our expectations about the world, where the truth can be known. This is the sort of statement I expect from philosophers and not scientists. That may be your expectation, but it's not mine. I believe (with a high degree of confidence) that the best we ever have is a Bayesian confidence in any hypothesis. > The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. I think there's a big leap between "We can't test it" and "It's untestable". I am not confident that humans 1000 years from now will still be bound by quantum indeterminacy. What we now model as probability fields may be in fact the result of a deterministic process which we do not yet understand.
- svieira 2y ago
  > The idea of an untestable truth is upsetting. May I ask why? If it is true, why do you need to test it? Is your problem unknowable truths? Or something else?
Vecr 2y ago
Essentially MWI, but you can say the other worlds are "not real" if you like. Decoherence is continuous, so either you come up with a (somewhat arbitrary) threshold or say reality is continuous as well.