Which is a very good idea, but what’s insightful here isn’t the mere idea that machines might be able to perform the functions we call vision and hearing and whatnot, it’s the idea of seeing scientific measurements in those terms and seeing what it means for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
From what I can tell in Everett’s papers, he wasn’t aiming for a simple interpretation.
He wanted to make a mathematical model wherein measurement happens.
That’s a model that hasn’t been created yet. I figure it’s a matter of time.
(I remark, though, that his thesis contains a number of approving-sounding uses of “simple”. E.g., ‘The whole issue of the transition from “possible” to “actual” is taken care of in the theory in a very simple way’ which Everett clearly regards as desirable. And, at the start of section 6, ‘The theory based on pure wave mechanics is a conceptually simple, causal theory …’ and so on, which again seems to see simplicity as a desirable characteristic. This is of course entirely standard; simplicity is nearly always seen by scientists as something to aim for. Do you have particular reason to think Everett’s view was different?)
That’s a model that hasn’t been created yet.
I think Everett’s thesis contains such a model, admittedly in a very simple boiled-down form. What more are you looking for?
it’s the idea of seeing scientific measurements in those terms and seeing what it means for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
My response is that Everett wasn’t trying to provide an Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
The Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics isn’t an interpertation. It’s a formulation.
It’s an actual plan to build an actual mathematical model that does something no other mathematical model has ever done: model a measurement being made.
I think Everett’s thesis contains such a model, admittedly in a very simple boiled-down form. What more are you looking for?
I beg to differ. Everett’s thesis contains the requirements for such a model. Requirements that lend themselves to a software implementation.
I think we all understand the difference between software requirements, and actual software, right?
Everett wasn’t trying to provide an Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Neither did I claim that he was. (Though he does describe what he’s doing as offering a “metatheory for the standard theory”, and I don’t think it’s so very far from providing an interpretation.) I said he is interested in what the inclusion of observers in the system means for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I think he clearly is.
The Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics isn’t an interpretation. It’s a formulation.
You can parrot Sean Carroll, sure, but I find his MWI advocacy unconvincing, let alone yours. At least he derives a thing or two in http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907 .
Well, it seems to me Everett laid down the requirements. Not the code. Here’s a project for the code.
No, it’s just some words. Again, consider taking a course or two.
From what I can tell in Everett’s papers, he wasn’t aiming for a simple interpretation.
He wanted to make a mathematical model wherein measurement happens.
That’s a model that hasn’t been created yet. I figure it’s a matter of time.
Perhaps not. Did I (or someone else) say he was?
(I remark, though, that his thesis contains a number of approving-sounding uses of “simple”. E.g., ‘The whole issue of the transition from “possible” to “actual” is taken care of in the theory in a very simple way’ which Everett clearly regards as desirable. And, at the start of section 6, ‘The theory based on pure wave mechanics is a conceptually simple, causal theory …’ and so on, which again seems to see simplicity as a desirable characteristic. This is of course entirely standard; simplicity is nearly always seen by scientists as something to aim for. Do you have particular reason to think Everett’s view was different?)
I think Everett’s thesis contains such a model, admittedly in a very simple boiled-down form. What more are you looking for?
You said:
My response is that Everett wasn’t trying to provide an Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
The Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics isn’t an interpertation. It’s a formulation.
It’s an actual plan to build an actual mathematical model that does something no other mathematical model has ever done: model a measurement being made.
I beg to differ. Everett’s thesis contains the requirements for such a model. Requirements that lend themselves to a software implementation.
I think we all understand the difference between software requirements, and actual software, right?
Well, it seems to me Everett laid down the requirements. Not the code. Here’s a project for the code.
Neither did I claim that he was. (Though he does describe what he’s doing as offering a “metatheory for the standard theory”, and I don’t think it’s so very far from providing an interpretation.) I said he is interested in what the inclusion of observers in the system means for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I think he clearly is.
You can parrot Sean Carroll, sure, but I find his MWI advocacy unconvincing, let alone yours. At least he derives a thing or two in http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7907 .
No, it’s just some words. Again, consider taking a course or two.
I am arguing against Many Worlds, if you can’t tell.
The fact that shminux had trouble telling that suggests that you aren’t doing a very good job explaining yourself.