But Eliezer, Wikipedia says about the Copenhagen interpretation:
Aage Petersen paraphrasing Niels Bohr: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”here is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”
Doesn’t this imply that Bohr didn’t believe in inherent randomness but in randomness in the “description”? This seems like the same position as Jaynes and Einstein to me. Is Wikipedia wrong here? What am I missing???
In one of Jayne’s paper’s, he discusses how Bohr relentlessly talked only on the epistemological level, which many of Bohr’s interpreters mistook for the ontological level.
So to answer your question, Bohr believed in randomness in the description, and didn’t speak of inherent anything—didn’t speak on the ontological level.
You can navigate down to everything available on Jaynes, plus papers from a lot of other folks.
You can probably get the original draft of his magnum opus as latex or .pdf files somewhere in the web as well, although it was removed from that site once the book was published. It includes chapters that weren’t published in the book.
But Eliezer, Wikipedia says about the Copenhagen interpretation:
Aage Petersen paraphrasing Niels Bohr: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”here is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”
Doesn’t this imply that Bohr didn’t believe in inherent randomness but in randomness in the “description”? This seems like the same position as Jaynes and Einstein to me. Is Wikipedia wrong here? What am I missing???
In one of Jayne’s paper’s, he discusses how Bohr relentlessly talked only on the epistemological level, which many of Bohr’s interpreters mistook for the ontological level.
It was the Clearing up Mysteries paper, section Confrontation or Reconciliation. http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf
So to answer your question, Bohr believed in randomness in the description, and didn’t speak of inherent anything—didn’t speak on the ontological level.
The papers of his hosted there, are those all of his papers?
If you go to the top level address http://bayes.wustl.edu/
You can navigate down to everything available on Jaynes, plus papers from a lot of other folks.
You can probably get the original draft of his magnum opus as latex or .pdf files somewhere in the web as well, although it was removed from that site once the book was published. It includes chapters that weren’t published in the book.