If your only interest in quantum mechanics is doing calculations, then I guess all this interpretive stuff is fluff. If you look at the history of physics, though, interpretive questions have often driven theoretical advancement. Consider, for example, the role Einstein’s Machianism played. Or—a more pertinent example—the role Everettianism played in the development of quantum computation. In neither case did the substance of the subsequent developments hinge on particular answers to the interpretive question, but philosophical speculation was the spur that led Einstein and Deutsch to their novel ideas.
I think many physicists are wise to ignore issues of interpretation. If you’re doing experimental work in quantum mechanics, it doesn’t matter. But it seems odd to suggest that scientists should just give up on the task of figuring out the actual structure of the world.
Oh, the interpretive questions are the fun stuff, for sure. Everett’s work was seminal. And yes, Mach was an inspiration for Einstein, though the eventual relativity theory was quite far from that. What I am unhappy with is the claims that one interpretation has more “truth” to it than another. More inspiration, maybe, but that’s it.
If your only interest in quantum mechanics is doing calculations, then I guess all this interpretive stuff is fluff. If you look at the history of physics, though, interpretive questions have often driven theoretical advancement. Consider, for example, the role Einstein’s Machianism played. Or—a more pertinent example—the role Everettianism played in the development of quantum computation. In neither case did the substance of the subsequent developments hinge on particular answers to the interpretive question, but philosophical speculation was the spur that led Einstein and Deutsch to their novel ideas.
I think many physicists are wise to ignore issues of interpretation. If you’re doing experimental work in quantum mechanics, it doesn’t matter. But it seems odd to suggest that scientists should just give up on the task of figuring out the actual structure of the world.
Oh, the interpretive questions are the fun stuff, for sure. Everett’s work was seminal. And yes, Mach was an inspiration for Einstein, though the eventual relativity theory was quite far from that. What I am unhappy with is the claims that one interpretation has more “truth” to it than another. More inspiration, maybe, but that’s it.