4 ms·
I think you are agreeing with my point that declaring the wave function to be mere bookkeeping is a poor foundation for writing about the interpretation of quan
by SiempreViernes 2y ago
I think you are agreeing with my point that declaring the wave function to be mere bookkeeping is a poor foundation for writing about the interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Can't really get any other sense out of your reply, but I'm not entirely sure.
- aap_ 2y agoAlso not sure I'm understanding you right :) My view is this: the wave function is mere bookkeeping and not anything ontologically fundamental. However the fact that such a seemingly bizarre concept lets you do quantum physics (even if it's not the only way) points to some fundamental questions about the nature of...well, nature. Of course this is not the only valid view...just one that makes sense to me. Thinking about these sorts of questions is a very fun endeavour.
- SiempreViernes 2y agoMy view is that OP's text about whether the wavefunction goes through both slits is overly long if the premise is that the wavefunction is only for bookkeeping.