Then why do you believe I, or Maudlin, got it wrong? None of what you’ve written suggests there’s a contradiction or factual error. Is there a specific sentence that is incorrect in my essay?
The catchy title “The Defeat of Reason” has no resemblance to what is going on in fundamental physics research.
You may be surprised that such a revelation did not immediately precipitate a revolution in physics, but the same dynamics that ensured preeminence of Bohr’s theories in the first place likewise subsequently hand-waved away even the most expertly presented refutations.
There was never an experimental “refutation” of the objective wave function collapse, the issue its obvious incompatibility with relativity, hence the instrumental approach of calculating probabilities until the deep fundamental questions get resolved (they haven’t been, and not for the lack of trying). Understanding decoherence got us to the diagonalized density matrix, but the last step, selecting a single eigenstate, is still an unresolved issue.
Yes, I totally agree that the catchy title was editorializing by Boston Review, that’s why I put a question mark at the end.
I never specified there were experimental refutations of ‘objective wave function collapse’. The difficulty is obvious as by definition an observation can not be refuted just by saying so, therefore I agree there likely won’t be some genius post doc who will wrap everything up in a bow, it’s likely a long road ahead to reconcile the difficulties.
Specifying the difficulties on some basis more objective than “I just don’t like it” would be a good start. You’re never going to satisfy everyones’s subjective preferences.
The various people you are quoting keep failing to say what is so bad about indeterminism, etc. That doesn’t mean no one can. In any case, you keep saying that you don’t agree with them, leaving us wondering why you quoted them.
It doesn’t seem like you are asking a question or making an inquiry but if you really do mean to then the possibilities could include both, neither, or something else. Why do I have to pick one or the other?
It doesn’t seem like you are asking a question or making an inquiry
I’m answering a question.
but if you really do mean to then the possibilities could include both, neither, or something else. Why do I have to pick one or the other
Because only you know. We got into the topic because people responded to your OP as though it was ,but you stonewalled them by saying that you didn’t actually support any of the arguments and claims you went to the trouble of citing. At this stage, no one knows how to make an object level response, and no one is making one. Is that what you wanted?
If you were not raising a question, then what is your above question in relation to? If it was a rhetorical question then you worded it in a way that suggests there is a binary choice, somewhere.
Then why do you believe I, or Maudlin, got it wrong? None of what you’ve written suggests there’s a contradiction or factual error. Is there a specific sentence that is incorrect in my essay?
The catchy title “The Defeat of Reason” has no resemblance to what is going on in fundamental physics research.
There was never an experimental “refutation” of the objective wave function collapse, the issue its obvious incompatibility with relativity, hence the instrumental approach of calculating probabilities until the deep fundamental questions get resolved (they haven’t been, and not for the lack of trying). Understanding decoherence got us to the diagonalized density matrix, but the last step, selecting a single eigenstate, is still an unresolved issue.
Yep. Decoherence is not simple.
Yes, I totally agree that the catchy title was editorializing by Boston Review, that’s why I put a question mark at the end.
I never specified there were experimental refutations of ‘objective wave function collapse’. The difficulty is obvious as by definition an observation can not be refuted just by saying so, therefore I agree there likely won’t be some genius post doc who will wrap everything up in a bow, it’s likely a long road ahead to reconcile the difficulties.
Specifying the difficulties on some basis more objective than “I just don’t like it” would be a good start. You’re never going to satisfy everyones’s subjective preferences.
What proof do you have for your assertion that there’s no objective basis?
The various people you are quoting keep failing to say what is so bad about indeterminism, etc. That doesn’t mean no one can. In any case, you keep saying that you don’t agree with them, leaving us wondering why you quoted them.
Because trying to understand both sides of an argument is common practice? Not sure what else to say if you somehow don’t recognize that as valid.
It’s hard to tell whether you are asking whether there is a problem with QM, or saying that there is . One would expect a question to be brief.
If you wrote this at the beginning then we wouldn’t have had to go back and forth.
Your concern is understandable, if you wish to learn more about the fundamentals of the topic you can refer to texts aimed at a general audience.
You didn’t say which though, did you?
Which of what?
“Whether you are asking whether there is a problem with QM, or saying that there is”
It doesn’t seem like you are asking a question or making an inquiry but if you really do mean to then the possibilities could include both, neither, or something else. Why do I have to pick one or the other?
I’m answering a question.
Because only you know. We got into the topic because people responded to your OP as though it was ,but you stonewalled them by saying that you didn’t actually support any of the arguments and claims you went to the trouble of citing. At this stage, no one knows how to make an object level response, and no one is making one. Is that what you wanted?
If you were not raising a question, then what is your above question in relation to? If it was a rhetorical question then you worded it in a way that suggests there is a binary choice, somewhere.