> > > > > > > > [scerir] But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a > > language, nothing more than a language. Efficient? > > > > > [Bruno] If it is a language, the question is what does that > > language refers too, and what or who does the conversation (in that > > language). >
I would mean: A general, natural "syntax" (or "operating system" maybe?). What does that "syntax" refers to? Good question. Well, I think that "something" for sure exists. Something knowable. I'm a realist. Everett III was a realist. At least, his interpretation was realist. Schroedinger thought his waves were real. So, I think that the supposed "syntax" could refer to real things, let us say "states" or Ur-objects or physical informations or knowable relations, or something else. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00676265 But are those "states" real? David Finkelstein wrote: "In quantum theory we represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical reality on which they act." Right. But isn't that - precisely - a "syntax"? And can Finkelstein exclude the very existence of that "hypothetical reality" on which operators act? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1132548789.189923.1615396769469%40mail1.libero.it.
