E.T. Jaynes on the Mind Projection Fallacy and quantum mechanics:
“[T]he mysteries of the uncertainty principle were explained to us thus: The momentum of the particle is unknown; therefore it has a high kinetic energy.” A standard of logic that would be considered a psychiatric disorder in other fields, is the accepted norm in quantum theory. But this is really a form of arrogance, as if one were claiming to control Nature by psychokinesis.”
Very good question. People may disagree with the quote, or may think that out of context it misrepresents Jaynes. In the most charitable interpretation that occurs to me, they think you overestimate the clarity and usefulness of the quote.
I did not downvote, and did not see the post until after it had been redacted. Hairyfigment’s description is pretty good. To that, I would add that I recognize the passage from Jaynes that you’re quoting, and I do understand why it seems particularly valuable. However, a while after reading it, or without ever having read that particular passage, I do have to say that the section you quoted is much less useful, powerful, whatever, without the remainder of the passage.
It also could have been downvoted by the substantial number of users on less wrong who just generally dislike the present state of discussion on quantum physics.
E.T. Jaynes on the Mind Projection Fallacy and quantum mechanics:
“[T]he mysteries of the uncertainty principle were explained to us thus: The momentum of the particle is unknown; therefore it has a high kinetic energy.” A standard of logic that would be considered a psychiatric disorder in other fields, is the accepted norm in quantum theory. But this is really a form of arrogance, as if one were claiming to control Nature by psychokinesis.”
Explanation for the down votes please?
Very good question. People may disagree with the quote, or may think that out of context it misrepresents Jaynes. In the most charitable interpretation that occurs to me, they think you overestimate the clarity and usefulness of the quote.
I did not downvote, and did not see the post until after it had been redacted. Hairyfigment’s description is pretty good. To that, I would add that I recognize the passage from Jaynes that you’re quoting, and I do understand why it seems particularly valuable. However, a while after reading it, or without ever having read that particular passage, I do have to say that the section you quoted is much less useful, powerful, whatever, without the remainder of the passage.
It also could have been downvoted by the substantial number of users on less wrong who just generally dislike the present state of discussion on quantum physics.