Copenhagen: Restriction on knowledge or restriction on ontology?

[DarMM]

It's a paradox if you don't have a warped view of physical reality (at least by classical standards)

You can replicate the paradox in a purely Classical model. See Spekkens toy model:
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401052

 

[Pleonasm]

He thought the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was an irrevocable problem for the Copenhagen interpretation before either that interpretation or the thought experiment existed?

Looks like he took a retrocausal view.

" It was, however, rejected by Planck, as well as Schrödinger and Laue. Even Einstein had rejected Bohr's interpretation. Planck called Heisenberg's matrix mechanics "disgusting," but he gave the Schrödinger equation a warmer reception. He expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own brainchild—unnecessary."

 

[Pleonasm]

This is the same Max Plank who accepted the theory of relativity long before it was empirically verified or even understood by the scientific community.

Not exactly a dogmatic scientist. But believe the Copenhagen interpretation if you like

 

[DarMM]

This is the same Max Plank who accepted the theory of relativity long before it was empirically verified or even understood by the scientific community.

Not exactly a dogmatic scientist. But believe the Copenhagen interpretation if you like

I never said I did, but I have read proper accounts of it and know that Schrodinger's cat poses no issues. Again a similar "paradox" shows up in epistemic states of purely Classical theories. See Spekkens toy model I linked to above.

You also haven't pointed out an actual issue with the interpretation. Just quoted various physicists stating they had a problem. What is the actual issue with reference to a proper account of the interpretation. For example in the Leifer lectures I linked to which of the four assumptions of the interpretation do you disagree with?

 

[Pleonasm]

You also haven't pointed out an actual issue with the interpretation.

I have the same views as those expressed by Weinberg at 6:00.

 

[DarMM]

I have the same views as those expressed by Weinberg at 6:00.

Can you refer to a systematic scientific account and not short offhand expositions and quotes? Very simply look at Leifer's four principles and say what ones you disagree with.

 

[Demystifier]

"The Copenhagen interpretation is basically nonsense". "No thoughtful person still holds to it"

Sean Carroll: at 1:50:30

I think that believing in Copenhagen is similar to believing that free will does not exist. Nobody can really believe it in practice, but it is possible to believe it in deep abstract academic thoughts.

 

[DarMM]

I think that believing in Copenhagen is similar to believing that free will does not exist. Nobody can really believe it in practice, but it is possible to believe it in deep abstract academic thoughts.

Which part in particular is like this? The no hidden variables I assume.

 

[Demystifier]

Which part in particular is like this? The no hidden variables I assume.

No reality until observed.

 

[Pleonasm]

I think that believing in Copenhagen is similar to believing that free will does not exist. Nobody can really believe it in practice, but it is possible to believe it in deep abstract academic thoughts.

How do you mean that nobody can disbelieve free will in practise? Deep abstract thought? May I refer you to classical mechanics of which we are apart of? Add to that the heat factor due to our brains and it is a clock-work existence in the making.

 

[Pleonasm]

No reality until observed.

It doesn't really say that, does it? The particles are in two states at the same time, that's not the same as not existing. We may call it that due to the law of contradiction, but it really is just as much external reality just weirder, if true.

 

[Demystifier]

How do you mean that nobody can disbelieve free will in practise?

We all think that we can do something (e.g. make discussions on this forum) if we decide so.

 

[Demystifier]

It doesn't really say that, does it?

https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/~maltoni/PHY1222/mermin_moon.pdf

 

[Pleonasm]

We all think that we can do something (e.g. make discussions on this forum) if we decide so.

And we do. It is an illusion however that we could have done otherwise. but we still made a personal decision decided by our biological brain states. It is our actions.

 

[Pleonasm]

You could always complain about the fact that you were determined to do X instead of Y. But i don't see which world view get's you out of the deterministic rabbit hole. You could might as well complain that you are randomly determined to do X instead of y

 

[Demystifier]

It is an illusion however that we could have done otherwise.

Yes, but the illusion is so strong that nobody really thinks that way when one is doing something.

 

[Pleonasm]

https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/~maltoni/PHY1222/mermin_moon.pdf

Did the object not exist just because it had both excitation and non excitation at the same time?

https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object/

 

[DarMM]

No reality until observed.

I think it would be more accurate to say no values for observables until observation. That is not the same as denying reality.

 

[Pleonasm]

I think it would be more accurate to say no values for observables until observation. That is not the same as denying reality.

Perhaps plural values is more accurate. There are values, they just aren't fixed.

 

[DrClaude]

Thread closed pending moderation.