The topic of quantum mechanics should probably be avoided, unless you can expect the audience to have taken a course or read a book on quantum mechanics. Long story short, though, the “what if we create our own reality?” debate was indeed revived by quantum mechanics. The debate was then concluded, long ago, because this was science and not a debate club. Objective reality was not overturned.
“The debate was then concluded, long ago, because this was science and not a debate club.”
Hahahaha. Fair enough point. I’ll change that, I sort of wrote the introduction first, when I had done minimal research, and so when I saw that people still believed in subjective reality, I assumed that it was still a legit viewpoint, even though I disagreed with it. I’m glad that I got the recently revived by quantum mechanics part right though. The audience is my teacher, who’s fairly intelligent, and while I’m not entirely sure he’s familiar with the concept, I’m thinking about going into further detail with the quantum mechanics and briefly (if that’s possible) covering how exactly the debate was revived by quantum mechanics. Thank you, Sir.
There are definitely approaches to QM that smack of subjective reality (“subjective” describing this one you of the many near-clones of you, one in each possible worlds each quantum mechanical outcome involving you creates, if you believe the MWI the way EY does). However, it is indeed best to stay away from the topic unless you are well versed in it.
Are you referring to staying away from the topic in the essay, or in general? Because I’ll admit to being a complete layman on QM, but I do find it interesting. Mind-blowing and confusing, certainly, but interesting.
Upon reflection I think that you can certainly find something online or in the sequences to quote, with a disclaimer that you are not qualified to form an opinion on the subjectivity of QM.
The topic of quantum mechanics should probably be avoided, unless you can expect the audience to have taken a course or read a book on quantum mechanics. Long story short, though, the “what if we create our own reality?” debate was indeed revived by quantum mechanics. The debate was then concluded, long ago, because this was science and not a debate club. Objective reality was not overturned.
“The debate was then concluded, long ago, because this was science and not a debate club.”
Hahahaha. Fair enough point. I’ll change that, I sort of wrote the introduction first, when I had done minimal research, and so when I saw that people still believed in subjective reality, I assumed that it was still a legit viewpoint, even though I disagreed with it. I’m glad that I got the recently revived by quantum mechanics part right though. The audience is my teacher, who’s fairly intelligent, and while I’m not entirely sure he’s familiar with the concept, I’m thinking about going into further detail with the quantum mechanics and briefly (if that’s possible) covering how exactly the debate was revived by quantum mechanics. Thank you, Sir.
There are definitely approaches to QM that smack of subjective reality (“subjective” describing this one you of the many near-clones of you, one in each possible worlds each quantum mechanical outcome involving you creates, if you believe the MWI the way EY does). However, it is indeed best to stay away from the topic unless you are well versed in it.
Are you referring to staying away from the topic in the essay, or in general? Because I’ll admit to being a complete layman on QM, but I do find it interesting. Mind-blowing and confusing, certainly, but interesting.
Upon reflection I think that you can certainly find something online or in the sequences to quote, with a disclaimer that you are not qualified to form an opinion on the subjectivity of QM.