Bio not provided
@schneibster also, while we're at it, here's the conclusion of the paper:
" Quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the nat- ural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments. Yet, nearly 90 years after the theory’s development, there is still no consensus in the scientific community regarding the interpretation of the theory’s foundational building blocks. Our poll is an urgent reminder of this peculiar situation."
4 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_ayatollah_under_the_bedsheets
@schneibster Unlike you, I don't need to cherry pick my arguments or claim 'the only correct' interpretation. Sloppy science is disregarding evidence to the contrary in order to push a specific interpretation, attempting to make data fit preconceived notions. I rather think that presenting all the data is honest, as it allows and invites refutation.
The fact that physicists disagree about QM interpretation is obvious, the fact that there are many interpretations also just as obvious. You seem to think that there is just two alternatives, yours and the god botherers. Obviously you are wrong. You hang your hopes on decoherence - plainly you're in a minority ( 15 %). 9% agree with the idea of randomness being illusory and the Copenhagen interpretation is still by far the most popular.
Plainly and Obviously then, the picture is not as simple or reductive as you would have it be, which is the basis of my claim - there are many models, many interpretations, and no clear picture of 'reality' emerging. Furthermore, many physicists are simply pragmatic & use the model most convenient for their current work while many others change their minds about interpretations regularly or have no fixed interpretation.
_as I've stated above_ , there are many interpretations of what QM theory means for 'physical reality' ( whatever that means), the arxiv paper plainly sets this out. You don't have to like it, but you have to take it.
Please stop making claims you cannot substantiate.
@schneibster Just so happens, there's a freshly published poll of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics. http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069 gives us a view of what specialists in the field of QM think, their interpretations of key questions. I will cite salients here for convenience, this will also provide some sort of a reality check to your "my interpretation or the god botherers' one" claim:
1 What is your opinion about the randomness of individual quantum events (such as the decay of a radioactive atom)?
9% - > randomness is only apparent
0% -> there is a hidden determinism
48% -> The randomness is irreducible:
64%-> Randomness is a fundamental concept in nature
2) Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement?
a. Yes, in all cases: 3%
b. Yes, in some cases: 52%
c. No: 48%
d. I’m undecided
5) The measurement problem
a. A pseudoproblem: 27%
b. Solved by decoherence: 15%
c. Solved/will be solved in another way: 39%
d. A severe difficulty threatening quantum mechanics: 24%
e. None of the above: 27%
6) What is the message of the observed violations of Bell’s inequalities?
a. Local realism is untenable: 64%
b. Action-at-a-distance in the physical world: 12%
c. Some notion of nonlocality: 36%
d. Unperformed measurements have no results: 52%
e. Let’s not jump the gun—let’s take the loopholes more seriously: 6%
12) What is your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics?
a. Consistent histories: 0%
b. Copenhagen: 42%
c. De Broglie–Bohm: 0%
d. Everett (many worlds and/or many minds): 18%
e. Information-based/information-theoretical: 24%
f. Modal interpretation: 0%
g. Objective collapse (e.g., GRW, Penrose): 9%
h. Quantum Bayesianism: 6%
i. Relational quantum mechanics: 6%
j. Statistical (ensemble) interpretation: 0%
k. Transactional interpretation: 0%
l. Other: 12%
m.I have no preferred interpretation 12%
So essentially, NO @schneibster , there is no one accepted interpretation, 9% of queried consider randomness to be apparent, only 15% accept decoherence as a solution to / explanation of the measurement problem and up to 24% consider the problem to be a severe difficulty threatening quantum mechanics. Deconstruct this, or better yet, deconstruct the arxiv article in detail:
Sorry matey, got to go surf the waves Richard F. wrote so eloquently about :
"There are the rushing waves mountains of molecules each stupidly minding its own business trillions apart yet forming white surf in unison."
and no, no free energy OR cold fusion. Really, you should get out more :)
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_ayatollah_under_the_bedsheets
@schneibster incomplete means incomplete, not allowing for factual claims about phenomena not managed or described by the incomplete theory. Please try no to impute your motives to others.
@schneibster now You're all over the place. I am a fan of Darwins' work & live in a place where global warming is an everyday reality. I am not a believer in gods of any description, nor do I consider creationism to be anything apart from weak apologetics of a rapidly irrelevant religious cult. How's that for a slice of fried golf? You really should try to distinguish between theses....
@schneibster is that anything like claiming QM explains all observable phenomena including gravity? Waiting for more cargo? your model is incomplete. The actual physicists who frame it _know_ its incomplete. Wake up & smell the actual science
"We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain"
@schneibster regarding deconstructing reality, this is what physics is about. Creating a model of the world is an attempt to 'deconstruct reality' to its underlying components and laws. "reality" and quantum mecahnics... You have made me laugh :) deterministically.
miss again. Not a philosopher. not a physical fact. I find it entertaining that you, seeing only two alternatives where the world of physics sees a number of competing theories, reduce the lot to your position and sky god fanciers' one.
While physics is meant to describe reality, it is a fragmentary picture - as I've cited above - which does not come close to explaining the most pervasive phenomena in the universe.
The standard model - which you've brought in to buttress the crumbling edifice of your argument about 'choice', is not complete in that it does not address gravity. If you refer to it as 'fact' ( presumably declaring your unquestioning faith in it) you still do not account for most of what drives the universe and - more importantly- do not account for the strange bias of the CP violation, matter-antimatter imbalance, which makes it possible for a universe of matter to exists at all.
You keep using 'fact' as though physics provided a complete, coherent model of the universe, one which somehow can deterministically claim non-determinism. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, except perhaps the claims of the theists. If you can't see how unprovable THAT is ( deterministically declaring non-determinism based on an incomplete theory), there is no hope for you to ever become a real physicist instead of a partisan zealot who ignores what he can't answer.Real scientists are open minded ( although not so open minded that their brains fall out :)
We've gone from discussing determinism, to your adhominem. Over the length of this exchange you've called me a crank, a creationist, a philosopher and an idiot while not addressing the salients, viz the facts of determinism as established in neurobiology by direct and fairly trivial experiments.
We know - directly and verifiably - that human behaviour is determined not by a will, choice or agency, but by pre-existing conditions, a result of antecedent causes and conditions and laws. We know that before you 'chose' to click 'post comment' or 'reply' , your neural activity was building up to this fact for some tenths of a second at least, while 'you' were not even aware of any 'choice'. You are an automaton - please don't misconstrue this as an insult - as we all are. What we do, what we think, all of that is determined by what we are and how we got there. 'Choice' therefore is an illusion, just as 'self' is.
This is why our behaviour is statistically predictable, why actuarial tables work, why your reactions and your behaviour here, in this thread, fits a predictable model of behaviour.
You remarked on this earlier: "Interesting how this stuff usually comes out about the most repressive ones". This is not a coincidence. Their behaviour can be predicted by the same means. The more repressive the regime or orthodoxy of thought, the more predictable the behaviour.
Sad to say, your behaviour was eminently predictable, one might even say _deterministic_ , including childish insults and reductive reasoning. Just like the ayatollahs, you have a model of the way the world functions & just like them, you are incapable of even entertaining alternatives ( noticed you failed to mention super symmetry, string theory, quantum gravity theorems, M theorem as a way of reconciling predictions of general relativity with QM) which real world physicist DO entertain or reference. You fit the model... Just sayin'
You lack the basic lightness of touch and understanding that models are not reality, they are ways of looking at reality, this view being something anyone conversant with QM understands. This is why Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics". You certainly don't if you think it somehow determines indeterminism.
@schneibster your sad attachment to a discursive framework within which only two positions exist ( that is yours, and the sky god fanciers) is severely limiting for you.
When and If you grow up, you may realize that actual physicists are open to many interpretations of observable data, hence the plethora of theories and models. You may _think_ The idea that a half silvered mirror or three polarizer somehow proves or justifies non-determinism has obviously not occurred to Weinberg or Hawking, but that simply appears an example of incredible hubris on your part, apart form being incredibly reductive.
@schneibster actually, the only one slinging insults is you. You're claiming that half silvered mirrors somehow predicate randomness in behaviour of photons, but you can't show their behaviour to be truly random. In fact, they are statistically predictable, ie. deterministic. Nothing magical here.
how old are you? 12?
@schneibster riiight. Now _you're_ going to tell me what _I_ believe
@schneibster I am not a believer in occult cause or gods of any description. You bandy the 'invisible sky friend' about a bit, but thus far no one has bit. Grow up. There are more than two potential interpretations to any number of phenomena
@schneibster " Your analogy fails because the car does not spontaneously choose a road, but the Higgs, and the neutron, do"
'choice' implies a chooser. Please stop anthropomorphizing nature. I submit the model is simply incomplete & does not account for what condition is the cause for a particular path. Certainly we can say that the standard model does not account for a number of interactions and phenomena. Numerous phenomena appear random, but on deeper inspection are not.
@schneibster Oh, and I just caught another poser pretending to map notions of 'choice' without defining a chooser. _You_ are not even choosing to respond. Looking at the thread this far, you are not even choosing to use adhominem or name-calling. No physicist does that, as far as I know, but your 'choices' aren't yours - are they?
@schneibster determinism is the idea that everything that happens is a result of antecedent causes and conditions, laws. This applies just as well the macro scale as it does at quantum scale. Attempting to use quantum uncertainty to derive the idea of 'choice' makes about as much sense as attempting to attribute free will to an automobile, merely because there are roads going in several directions.
@schneibster determinism. Duh
@schneibster As posited, control the cardinality of available transformation, not determine the actual behaviour of. Much like providing you with pills , a gun, a knife and an access pass to a tall building does not actually determine which method you use to off yourself.