Against "interpretation" - Comments

[Dale]

So if even the minimal shut-up-calculate approach is an interpretation, it shows that it is impossible to do quantum physics without dealing with some interpretation. In other words, any work on quantum physics is an interpretation to a certain extent. So it doesn't make sense to accuse someone for dealing with interpretations instead of dealing with pure (quantum) physics.

Any work on any science requires using a minimal interpretation. That doesn't mean that work on science is an interpretation.

Since the minimal interpretation is non-controversial, there is nothing wrong with people complaining/accusing about all of the useless controversy and wasted time prompted by discussions about the various non-minimal interpretations in QM. The key distinction between the minimal interpretation and other interpretations is that the minimal interpretation can be scientifically investigated whereas none of the other interpretations can. They are philosophical rather than scientific, and hence the "accusations" you mention are both are both fair and self-consistent coming from a scientifically-minded person.

 

[DarMM]

Since the minimal interpretation is non-controversial, there is nothing wrong with people complaining/accusing about all of the useless controversy and wasted time prompted by discussions about the various non-minimal interpretations in QM

There are scenarios that can be constructed within quantum theory where it's not exactly clear what the minimal interpretation would predict or if it would forbid them. Although the interpretations are purely metaphysical for normal experimental situations, they do differ in these situations, e.g. the Frauchiger-Renner set up and Brukner's scenario.

 

[Elias1960]

Since the minimal interpretation is non-controversial, there is nothing wrong with people complaining/accusing about all of the useless controversy and wasted time prompted by discussions about the various non-minimal interpretations in QM. The key distinction between the minimal interpretation and other interpretations is that the minimal interpretation can be scientifically investigated whereas none of the other interpretations can. They are philosophical rather than scientific, and hence the "accusations" you mention are both fair and self-consistent coming from a scientifically-minded person.

I disagree. I have argued elsewhere that interpretations are the reasonable starting points for theory development. Development of new, more fundamental theories is certainly an important part of science, we value those who have succeeded in this as the greatest scientists at all. They can be, clearly, scientifically investigated. In particular, different interpretations usually have different sets of postulates and scientific principles that are fulfilled in that interpretation. Then, interpretations have weak points, which may be criticized. One may attempt to remove them, which would be reasonable for the defenders of the interpretation, and which often leads to a modification of the interpretation, and the result may be an empirically different theory. Defenders of an interpretation have also other possibilities - like to show that every reasonable interpretation will have the same problem. This was Bell's theorem.

Those who think such discussions are a waste of time are not obliged to participate. But any measures against such discussions beyond personal non-participation (like forbidding such discussions in a popular science forum) have an inherently anti-scientific character.

The importance of the discussion of interpretations is not restricted to advanced research with the aim to develop new theories. Interpretations have a strong influence on teaching and popularization. An incomprehensible interpretation will harm the teaching of the theory, the result will be incompetent scientists with inferior intuitions about what the theory predicts. Recommended reading here is Bell, how to teach special relativity.

In the worst case, the failure to teach the theory based on a comprehensible interpretation will create anti-scientific freaks - they think the theory (and not only the incomprehensible interpretation) is simply nonsense, and invent anti-scientific conspiracy theories.

 

[DarMM]

There are scenarios that can be constructed within quantum theory where it's not exactly clear what the minimal interpretation would predict or if it would forbid them. Although the interpretations are purely metaphysical for normal experimental situations, they do differ in these situations, e.g. the Frauchiger-Renner set up and Brukner's scenario.

To expand on this, I was trying to think of an analogue in GR. One might be if the blockworld interpretation and other interpretations differed on a spacetime that was very odd and artificial, but where proving that it is forbidden by the Energy conditions was a very difficult technical problem.

So there would be arguments as to whether such a spacetime could even occur, should we ignore the gap in the interpretations it exposes just because it is forbidden (if it is forbidden) etc.

 

[Dale]

I have argued elsewhere that interpretations are the reasonable starting points for theory development.

That is a common argument from the pro-interpretations crowd, but frankly the evidence supporting it is rather thin. No scientific study has demonstrated that and the historical evidence is (by its nature) highly anecdotal and not strongly supportive of the claim with respect to QM interpretations specifically. I am unconvinced.

I am also unconvinced that the mess of QM interpretations is helpful in either science education or popularization as you claim. Anecdotally, in my case I know it has been actively harmful in my personal education, and again I know of no systematic study supporting your claim.

 

[DarMM]

I also don't think it is definitely the case that interpretations will lead to future theories. Maybe they will, but just as easily it could come from out of left field.

I think the more important thing about interpretations is how they have driven advances in quantum information, e.g. Brukner's scenario gives a correlation class tighter than Bell's inequality that is useful in quantum cryptography. Analysis of quantum discord and other results.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

That is a common argument from the pro-interpretations crowd, but frankly the evidence supporting it is rather thin. No scientific study has demonstrated that and the historical evidence is (by its nature) highly anecdotal and not strongly supportive of the claim with respect to QM interpretations specifically. I am unconvinced.

I am also unconvinced that the mess of QM interpretations is helpful in either science education or popularization as you claim. Anecdotally, in my case I know it has been actively harmful in my personal education, and again I know of no systematic study supporting your claim.

I concur. QM didn't make much sense to me except for the "shut up and calculate" perspective. And I'm an atomic physicist. Computing quantum spectra and verifying quantum predictions with measurements were a big part of my career for many years. Too many folks debating interpretations without even a real understanding of how the "shut up and calculate" part of the deal works. I can't take discussions of interpretations seriously from folks who haven't proven their ability to "shut up and calculate." And then, my first question is always going to be:

Why testable predictions does your interpretation make differently from the "shut up and calculate" approach"?

If there are no different testable predictions, then you have metaphysics rather than physics.

 

[DarMM]

I concur. QM didn't make much sense to me except for the "shut up and calculate" perspective. And I'm an atomic physicist. Computing quantum spectra and verifying quantum predictions with measurements were a big part of my career for many years. Too many folks debating interpretations without even a real understanding of how the "shut up and calculate" part of the deal works. I can't take discussions of interpretations seriously from folks who haven't proven their ability to "shut up and calculate." And then, my first question is always going to be:

Why testable predictions does your interpretation make differently from the "shut up and calculate" approach"?

If there are no different testable predictions, then you have metaphysics rather than physics.

I'm not sure I'd totally agree with this. It sounds pragmatic and sensible, but there is some disconnect with why people actually like science and get interested in it. I think it's natural to wonder what the wavefunction actually is (knowledge/information or a real wave) and what QM actually implies about the world. Few kids get books about astronomy due to an interest in telescope cell excitations, with stars as simple "metaphysics". Students will wonder these things as they are learning.

There is plenty of time wasting and discussion of the meaning of QM here on the forum by people not well versed in QM. However Steven Weinberg doesn't have a section on it in his textbook and Asher Peres and Roland Omnès and many others don't have a whole books on it because the whole discussion is pointless. Despite how silly the discussions can get here from those uninformed about the formalism, it is an area of academic enquiry.

 

[atyy]

If there are no different testable predictions, then you have metaphysics rather than physics.

But if that is true then old fashioned renormalization would be perfectly fine too.

 

[Elias1960]

That is a common argument from the pro-interpretations crowd, but frankly the evidence supporting it is rather thin. No scientific study has demonstrated that and the historical evidence is (by its nature) highly anecdotal and not strongly supportive of the claim with respect to QM interpretations specifically. I am unconvinced.

There have not been that many cases where one can distinguish different interpretations. So, the amount of data is rather small. And, of course, it is hard to identify in history of science, given that only the theory developments which have been successful will be remembered. This gives at most one interpretation per theory where we can expect to find, in the retrospective, a theory development based on it.

For this small database, we have already clear examples.

Nelsonian stochastics was developed as an interpretation. After the Wallstrom objection, it appeared itself to be a different theory, namely, quantum theory where in the configuration space representation wave functions cannot have zeros.

We have the Lorentz ether (ok, SR with preferred frame). In classical physics, it is an interpretation. In quantum physics, without rejection of EPR realism and Reichenbach's common cause principle, they become different theories, given that only in the spacetime variant the Bell inequalities can be proven. The extension of the Lorentz ether interpretation to gravity leads to a theory different from GR, without wormholes and causal loops.

Historically, we have the success of the atomic theory, which was a long time only an interpretation. But a lot of theoretical development has been done during that period where the atomic theory was yet rejected by scientists like Mach.

There is the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability theory. In Jaynes's book, he argues a lot about the statistical methods based on the Bayesian interpretation being in some aspects different and better than what has been developed before. They reinterpreted the whole of statistical mechanics in a Bayesian way and also claim to have reached better results for non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

One can consider Ptolemaeus vs. Kopernicus as interpretations. Kepler's approach was based on some heliocentric mysticism, so, some interpretation.

I am also unconvinced that the mess of QM interpretations is helpful in either science education or popularization as you claim. Anecdotally, in my case I know it has been actively harmful in my personal education, and again I know of no systematic study supporting your claim.

The situation in relativity Bell has supported with anecdotical evidence. And I can say that he is right from own experience of popular discussions. There is no twin paradox for those who know the Lorentzian interpretation, and Bell's own rocket problem also works as described, showing a lot of confusion among those who know only the spacetime interpretation.

The teaching of quantum theory is certainly a mess. There is nothing comparable to Bell's paper about which interpretations are easier to understand and give better intuitions. Moreover, if one assumes that the easier to understand interpretations are the realistic and causal ones, there is no experience of teaching those interpretations first.

 

[atyy]

I think the more important thing about interpretations is how they have driven advances in quantum information, e.g. Brukner's scenario gives a correlation class tighter than Bell's inequality that is useful in quantum cryptography. Analysis of quantum discord and other results.

I imagine Bell might not have agreed. I think it's neat that his inequality has an operational significance for certifying randomness, but he was really interested in the measurement problem, which is traditionally the main motivation for interpretations.

 

[DarMM]

I imagine Bell might not have agreed. I think it's neat that his inequality has an operational significance for certifying randomness, but he was really interested in the measurement problem, which is traditionally the main motivation for interpretations.

You're right of course, what I should say is even if you are being pragmatic work on interpretations has given solid results in quantum information and given us a better understanding of the structure of the theory.

 

[ftr]

I imagine Bell might not have agreed. I think it's neat that his inequality has an operational significance for certifying randomness, but he was really interested in the measurement problem, which is traditionally the main motivation for interpretations.

It seems to me that the issue of randomness (which leads to measurement problem) is the main motivation for interpretations since it destroys the familiar particle concept.

 

[Demystifier]

Since the minimal interpretation is non-controversial

You may be right about this, but what I don't believe is that someone may fully accept the minimal interpretation in his heart. Don't you ever wonder, in your heart, what the atom looks like when nobody observes it? I fully understand that a physicist may be afraid of asking such questions because they cannot be answered by the scientific method, but I cannot understand that a physicist never asks himself such a question anyway.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

You may be right about this, but what I don't believe is that someone may fully accept the minimal interpretation in his heart. Don't you ever wonder, in your heart, what the atom looks like when nobody observes it? I fully understand that a physicist may be afraid of asking such questions because they cannot be answered by the scientific method, but I cannot understand that a physicist never asks himself such a question anyway.

As a physicist, I have learned over a long period of time that such questions are meaningless in physical sciences as they go beyond empirical science (an instrumentalist's point of view in physics). As a human being, however, I am interested in questions regarding what's behind the "empirical reality". As Richard Conn Henry puts it: “If you are not simply to be like a squirrel or a rabbit, you must choose some quantum mechanics interpretation (as it is called⎯ it is not really “an interpretation,” of course; it is your theory of yourself and of your experience of observations).”

 

[DarMM]

One thing though is why don't we do this for let's say classical electromagnetism. Classical EM describes fields $\textbf{E}$ and $\textbf{B}$. Now of course it describes these fields down to length scales we can't probe, so prior to QED somebody could have asked "Is the field really oscillating on such small length scales?". Nobody did however because it was clear what the theory was talking about. There are fields, they move as such, etc. One would still have philosophical questions like "Are these fields real or just a description...", but this wasn't a major issue.

However that's not what is going on in QM and I think some people's views here see the interpretations as revolving around theory external issues like asking "are the fields real?" in classical EM.

Rather the problem in QM is the measurement problem. If you take textbook QM the theory is actually incoherent about what is going or how to understand and relate the dual descriptions of the device. That's why you can exploit the dual description in textbook QM to set up contradictions like Brukner's experiment or Frauchiger-Renner.

If the interpretations of QM were just purely metaphysical questions and nothing more, I don't think there would be much discussion about interpretations. Just like there isn't for Classical Mechanics and General Relativity. The problem is an internal logical inconsistency in the theory as formulated in the 1930s and presented in the texts of Dirac and Von Neumann.

I have never seen a clear presentation of the measurement problem in the so called "minimal" view. The measurement problem is a logical incoherence in the theory, not just metaphysics. I don't think you can get out of it just by being positivist/empiricist. Or could somebody give me a clear explanation of the measurement problem in the minimal view?

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Cord Friebe, Holger Lyre, Manfred Stöckler, Meinard Kuhlmann, Oliver Passon and Paul M. Näger in “The Philosophy of Quantum Physics”:

“If one tries to proceed systematically, then it is expedient to begin with an interpretation upon which everyone can agree, that is with an instrumentalist minimal interpretation. In such an interpretation, Hermitian operators represent macroscopic measurement apparatus, and their eigenvalues indicate the measurement outcomes which can be observed, while inner products give the probabilities of obtaining particular measured values. With such a formulation, quantum mechanics remains stuck in the macroscopic world and avoids any sort of ontological statement about the (microscopic) quantum-physical system itself.”

 

[DarMM]

Cord Friebe, Holger Lyre, Manfred Stöckler, Meinard Kuhlmann, Oliver Passon and Paul M. Näger in “The Philosophy of Quantum Physics”:

“If one tries to proceed systematically, then it is expedient to begin with an interpretation upon which everyone can agree, that is with an instrumentalist minimal interpretation. In such an interpretation, Hermitian operators represent macroscopic measurement apparatus, and their eigenvalues indicate the measurement outcomes which can be observed, while inner products give the probabilities of obtaining particular measured values. With such a formulation, quantum mechanics remains stuck in the macroscopic world and avoids any sort of ontological statement about the (microscopic) quantum-physical system itself.”

That doesn't resolve the issue with the measurement problem.

For the formalism permits a self-adjoint operator $\hat{A}$ that corresponds to measurements on the device itself, representing a second device. Then unitary evolution predicts a state $\Psi$ for the entire device which via the same inner products predicts results that contradict the account where the first device is represented by an operator $B$ and we have a state $\psi$ for the system.

To remove the contradiction one has to say something more. It a purely logical problem internal to the theory.

 

[Demystifier]

I have never seen a clear presentation of the measurement problem in the so called "minimal" view.

The minimal view asserts that there is no measurement problem. More precisely, the minimal view considers "measurement" as a primitive fundamental concept that does need to be explained in terms of something more fundamental. This usually works for practical engineering purposes, but it contradicts the principle of reductionism according to which macroscopic phenomena (such as a measurement) can be reduced to more fundamental microscopic phenomena. A practical minimalist essentially says: "I don't care how exactly the measurement works at the microscopic level, as long as it works for my practical purposes in the laboratory". As long as the minimalist doesn't care about it, the problem of measurement doesn't exist for him.

But it can be said for any problem in science (and not only in science). The problem doesn't exist for you if you don't care about it. You may or may not have rational reasons for not caring about something, but that's not a problem. The problem is when someone insists that others should also not care about it, just because he doesn't care.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

That doesn't resolve the issue with the measurement problem.

In case you avoid any ontological assumption regarding the pre-measurement situation, the measurement problem doesn't exist.

 

[DarMM]

In case you avoid any ontological assumption regarding the pre-measurement situation, the measurement problem doesn't exist.

There's no ontological assumption about the pre-measurement situation here though. Simply two contradictory accounts of the same measurement. What's the ontological assumption here? The formalism itself allows these operators of the kind I described, that's not an "ontological assumption".

The minimal view asserts that there is no measurement problem. More precisely, the minimal view considers "measurement" as a primitive fundamental concept that does need to be explained in terms of something more fundamental

Is that what's going on here though? What I'm saying just follows from the existence of observables like $A$ and $B$ above which the formalism permits. Unless by "view measurement as a primitive" you mean "exclude observables like $A$". However this requires a modification of the bare formalism, i.e. forbidding some observables. Asher Peres does this, but I still think it means we need to make some clear statements about the formalism, a fairly strong one in fact.

 

[vanhees71]

I have never seen a clear presentation of the measurement problem in the so called "minimal" view. The measurement problem is a logical incoherence in the theory, not just metaphysics. I don't think you can get out of it just by being positivist/empiricist. Or could somebody give me a clear explanation of the measurement problem in the minimal view?

I think the minimal view is usual that what's presented in standard textbooks, and there measurements are just taken as "primitives" within the theory which are not necessary to be defined any further than by the specific setups the experimentalist uses to measure. Quantum theory provides a framework to predict probabilities of such defined measurements.

In classical physics it's not that different. Nobody in a theoretical-physics textbook talks about measurement processes simply because it's taken as described above. Of course as in QT you have to think about, how to construct a measurement device to measure some given quantity.

You had the example of the classical electromagnetic field, and already here it's not so clear a priori how to measure it. We start with some qualitative notion of light (given the hypothesis by Maxwell that light is nothing else than an electromagnetic wave field in free space). What we "see" (in the literal sense) are qualities as color and intensity. Of course nowadays we know that color is in fact not a physical but a physiological quantity, but roughly speaking we can consider it as a quality related to the frequency (and thus equivalently to wavelength) of the electromagnetic wave and the intensity as a quality related to the amplitude of the electromagnetic field.

Now the question occurs how to quantify it. From a theorist's point of view one looks at what is natural to define, and the only idea one can come up with is to take energy density (a positive definite gauge-invariant quantity) and/or energy-flow density as measures. Now you construct some device supposed to measure energy or energy-flow densities like a photoplate and compare with the predictions from theory. If you get agreement within the limits of uncertainty/accuracy you say the theory is successful in describing quantitatively the phenomena.

 

[DarMM]

I think the minimal view is usual that what's presented in standard textbooks, and there measurements are just taken as "primitives" within the theory which are not necessary to be defined any further than by the specific setups the experimentalist uses to measure. Quantum theory provides a framework to predict probabilities of such defined measurements.

In classical physics it's not that different

The problem isn't that measurement isn't dealt with in textbooks or that doing so is complex. It's that by trying to do so I can derive a contradiction very quickly. Which is why Asher Peres says the "Minimal Interpretation" is really textbook QM + there are no superobservers.

If by the minimal view we mean what Peres has in his book that's fine. If we mean textbook QM/what most people mean by "shut up and calculate" then no that does have a contradiction.

 

[Dale]

You may be right about this, but what I don't believe is that someone may fully accept the minimal interpretation in his heart. Don't you ever wonder, in your heart, what the atom looks like when nobody observes it? I fully understand that a physicist may be afraid of asking such questions because they cannot be answered by the scientific method, but I cannot understand that a physicist never asks himself such a question anyway.

Sure. I completely agree with you here. I ask myself many non-scientific questions. I just (a) recognize that they are non-scientific (b) don’t ask them here (c) don’t bother to argue about them at all (d) keep an open mind and (e) switch positions as often as I find convenient.

For me, the biggest problem here on PF is (c). You all argue incessantly and interminably about this stuff. It is all opinion! It may be the opinion that you hold in your heart, but it is just an opinion. Why do you all argue so much about opinions?

Interpretations (beyond the minimal interpretation) have little scientific value, and only this “in your heart” emotional attachment. So please (all of you) tone down the arguments substantially.

 

[DarMM]

For me, the biggest problem here on PF is (c). You all argue incessantly and interminably about this stuff. It is all opinion! It may be the opinion that you hold in your heart, but it is just an opinion. Why do you all argue so much about opinions?

Because it's an actual debate in the scientific community and by discussing it you learn more about the formalism and because it's the motivation behind several scientific discoveries and because the minimal/textbook interpretation is internally incoherent.

I get the sentiment, but it's not as clear cut as you're making it, otherwise it wouldn't be in textbooks for QM.

 

[Demystifier]

Why do you all argue so much about opinions?

Interpretations (beyond the minimal interpretation) have little scientific value, and only this “in your heart” emotional attachment.

Opinions are not only emotional attachments. We all have more-or-less rational arguments for those opinions. Sure, the arguments are not strictly scientific, but they are still rational. Or you may call those arguments philosophic, I'm fine with that, but philosophy is based on reason, not on emotions. I think that's the reason we like to argue about it so much.

I perfectly understand that most physicists don't like to talk so much about it, and that's perfectly fine too. But I don't understand why those who do not like to talk about see a problem in the fact that some of us do like it. The community of physicists is not uniform, we like to talk about different things, and I see no problem in it.

 

[Dale]

by discussing it you learn more about the formalism

I disagree about the pedagogical value of interpretations arguments. In my personal (anectdotal) case it is definitely an obstacle to learning, not a benefit. And I challenge you to find any professional scientific study that actually demonstrates a statistically significant learning benefit to arguments about interpretations. Frankly, I think this claim is completely unsubstantiated and not very credible on its face. I suspect that the only reason that you believe it is because you and the other interpretations fans tell it to each other to justify your arguments.

Because it's an actual debate in the scientific community

I think that you are vastly overstating the level of debate in the scientific community. Certainly, it is not as incessant professionally as it plays out here. In any case, how about you all just tone it down a notch or three? Would the scientific community's debate be compromised if on PF you were all a little less strident and continuous in your repetitive squabbles?

 

[Demystifier]

I get the sentiment, but it's not as clear cut as you're making it, otherwise it wouldn't be in textbooks for QM.

As a support for this claim, I remind everybody of the list of general QM textbooks that contain a substantive discussion of interpretations: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/qm-textbooks-with-interpretations.912703/

 

[Demystifier]

I think that you are vastly overstating the level of debate in the scientific community. Certainly, it is not as incessant professionally as it plays out here. In any case, how about you all just tone it down a notch or three? Would the scientific community's debate be compromised if on PF you were all a little less strident and continuous in your repetitive squabbles?

One of benefits of Physics Forums is that here we can discuss physics related questions that cannot so easily be discussed in physics journals. Technical non-interpretational aspects are perhaps sufficiently covered in journals, so we don't have so much need to discuss it here.

 

[DarMM]

I disagree about the pedagogical value of interpretations arguments. In my personal (anectdotal) case it is definitely an obstacle to learning, not a benefit. And I challenge you to find any professional scientific study that actually demonstrates a statistically significant learning benefit to arguments about interpretations

There's very little research on the pedagogy of QM particularly for higher areas like QFT and interpretations. I'd also have opinions on the best way to teach QFT. There's no studies about it, but I do think it for reasons that come from lecturing and talking to other lecturers. I've had a bit about interpretations at the end of my QM lectures. No there is no study, but there aren't really many such studies for any higher area of physics. I have one anecdotal experience as a lecturer, you have another as a moderator here. Yes we can't say more than that since there are no studies, but I don't think that makes my view ridiculous.

I suspect that the only reason that you believe it is because you and the other interpretations fans tell it to each other to justify your arguments

Or, instead of reading weird motivations into my behavior, it comes from experience as a lecturer and somebody who tried to understand QM and is my genuine experience and opinion. Not held to justify arguments.

interpretations fans

In any case, how about you all just tone it down a notch or three? Would the scientific community's debate be compromised if on PF you were all a little less strident and continuous in your repetitive squabbles?

Sorry but "interpretation fans", telling me to be "less strident", "repetitive squabbles"? I just like talking about QM, I don't even really hold to an interpretation. I've had long discussions with say @Demystifier above. Fourteen pages where we disagreed such as on the Frauchiger-Renner thread, then in the end he was right, I thanked him and we concluded. Friendly disagreement. I don't particularly like this characterisation. What opinion do I hold that I am being strident with? I'm actually trying to take a middle ground here, why do I need to "tone it down"?

 

[Dale]

Or you may call those arguments philosophic, I'm fine with that, but philosophy is based on reason, not on emotions.

Fair enough. I accept that. The attachment includes emotion, reason, and aesthetics, as do most philosophical preferences.

Here is the difference I see. In my personal life I have strong philosophical positions to which I am quite firmly attached, e.g. I am a devoutly religious person. I don't argue about those positions at all. I will explain to someone why I hold that position and the value to me in holding that position, but I simply do not argue about it. If my reasons for holding my opinion are not convincing or interesting to them then I do not pursue it further and simply leave the opportunity open if they ever do become interested in the future. When I was younger I argued about such things, but I grew out of it. Furthermore, I don't bring that stuff here, the P in PF is physics, not philosophy. There is a time and place for such things, and you all seem to have no sense of that here.

 

[Dale]

Fourteen pages where we disagreed such as on the Frauchiger-Renner thread, then in the end he was right, I thanked him and we concluded. Friendly disagreement. I don't particularly like this characterisation. What opinion do I hold that I am being strident with?

Umm, how about right there? Fourteen pages!

 

[DarMM]

Umm, how about right there? Fourteen pages!

How is discussing a subtle issue in a new paper for a long time strident? Even the community didn't know exactly how to analyse the FR argument. At no point were we aggressive with each other and it just took a long time to sort out the details. What's wrong with it being 14 pages? It's a new and difficult paper.

I find this a bit unfair. It's characterising enjoying a long discussion on the topic as being a strident opinionated loon. What opinion am I being strident about?

EDIT: It was actually 8 pages

 

[vanhees71]

The problem isn't that measurement isn't dealt with in textbooks or that doing so is complex. It's that by trying to do so I can derive a contradiction very quickly. Which is why Asher Peres says the "Minimal Interpretation" is really textbook QM + there are no superobservers.

If by the minimal view we mean what Peres has in his book that's fine. If we mean textbook QM/what most people mean by "shut up and calculate" then no that does have a contradiction.

How can there be a contradiction, since that's how our theories are applied by experimentelists and also the other way around, how models and maybe finally theories are developed from analysis of experiments.

I think Peres's textbook is the most (if not the only) sensible textbook on interpretational issues I know.

 

[vanhees71]

Because it's an actual debate in the scientific community and by discussing it you learn more about the formalism and because it's the motivation behind several scientific discoveries and because the minimal/textbook interpretation is internally incoherent.

I get the sentiment, but it's not as clear cut as you're making it, otherwise it wouldn't be in textbooks for QM.

Yeah, it's a great topic to discuss at lunch, if the weather is too boring to talk about ;-).