Popper/Lande interpretation of QM

[DrChinese]

I would say that both a) and b) are true. Let me explain.

What does it mean that A is cause of B? It means a logical relation
A -> B
i.e., A IMPLIES B.
But what if both
A -> B
and
B -> A
are true?
Should we say that then A is a cause of B and B is a cause A? I don't think so. It's better to say that the notion of cause and consequence do not have any fundamental meaning. (They have only meaning on an effective macroscopic level, due to the second "law" of thermodynamics.)

I think cause and effect is a convenient concept for helping us to decide how to act. It provides a sense of personal responsibility. I don't think it is a rigorous scientific truth.

 

[Demystifier]

I think cause and effect is a convenient concept for helping us to decide how to act. It provides a sense of personal responsibility. I don't think it is a rigorous scientific truth.

So we basically agree on that issue.