On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 4:02 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2/15/2025 12:19 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > The fact remains: quantum mechanics, as it stands, predicts self-location >> uncertainty > > > *No it doesn't. * > *If what you say is true then quantum mechanics wouldn't need probability, it could simultaneously make predictions about momentum and position to any arbitrary degree of precision, but quantum mechanics can't do that. Therefore I must conclude that either quantum mechanics is wrong or you are. * > > *QM as it stands, in textbooks and universities and poles of > practitioners is still majority neo-Copenhagen.* > *That's largely true. Textbooks, especially introductory physics ones, teach you how to use quantum mechanics to make probabilistic predictions, but they pretty much follow the shut up and calculate philosophy and don't worry about what quantum mechanics means. For over a decade the editor of the leading physics journal in the world, "Physical Review" had a policy of refusing to publish any paper about the foundations of quantum mechanics without even reading it. Fortunately that policy has changed, these days you can even win a Nobel prize for work on foundations. * > > *We're not talking about "reality" here, just an interpretation. * > *That's not true, Many Worlds and objective collapse make different predictions, one says it happens the other says it doesn't. Experiments are going on right now to determine who's right, if they find objective collapse then Many Worlds will be proven wrong.* *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* edq -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oJaFUUJSkffeiLW-b_ewBc%2BiTNJOXm8%3DJyqdfQVSdhQ%40mail.gmail.com.
