I think you (and possibly Maudlin) got it all wrong. No one likes the “shut up and calculate” non-interpretation. Sadly, it’s the only actionable one, since frequentist probabilities is the only measurable quantity. The Bohmian pilot wave stuff does not add anything interesting, and MWI is nowhere near testable levels. Dynamical collapse due to gravity might become testable soon though, with the “gravcat” states are almost within experimental reach. There is a resurgence of interest in the foundations of QM, see recent work by Sean Carroll, for example, and a recent discussion on Scott Aaronson’s blog. Basically everyone admits that any theoretical progress would require a Kuhnian paradigm shift of epic magnitude, not seen for a century or so.
The issue is not that theorists went off on a wrong path somewhere. It’s that there is no clear “right” path in sight, and every promising avenue of advance faces extreme theoretical and conceptual obstacles.
The logical consequences of Bell’s inequality being violated seems to imply non-local forces or perhaps even more mysterious things are in fact going on. Or alternatively some form of superdeterminism.
I am partial to superdeterminism, as well, since I believe the world being deterministic, but there is no good model of superdeterminism at present that gives rise to Bell inequalities. In fact, it would be far easier to come up with a classical superdeterminism than with quantum one.
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.
You (or Maudlin or somebody) need to explain what is so terrible about non locality and indeterminism. I don’t buy arguments from “visualisation” because I don’t see what’s so special.about the human visual system.
There is nothing ‘terrible’ about non locality. Was that implied somewhere? (Maudlin implied Einstein thought it was perhaps ‘terrible’ though it certainly doesn’t seem like he shares the sentiment, nor do I)
You were the one who started this comment thread? What are you inquiring about?
If you are confused about what Maudlin believes the problems are I would recommend reading his review. In short he seems to have believed there are many problems in many different aspects of fundamental physics and the progress of science, though since I don’t know the man personally I wont presume to know more.
I did read the review. In the review , he treats indeterminism and non locality as bad things that need to be avoided. But he doesn’t say why. So I don’t think the review me few anything (none of his other points are strong either).
If you don’t think the review contains anything valid, why did you post it?
You appear to not understand the comments I have left, or his essay, or both. He does not express a problem with ‘non locality’ or ‘indeterminism’, as far as I can tell. He references OTHER people who seem to have such a stance.
Yes, so you understand that reviews cannot be ‘valid‘ or ‘invalid’ independent of the arguments advanced within them? And you understand that neither the original author, nor myself, advanced an argument about the ’terribleness’ of non-locality, indeterminism, etc.? Then everything should be clear?
I think you (and possibly Maudlin) got it all wrong. No one likes the “shut up and calculate” non-interpretation. Sadly, it’s the only actionable one, since frequentist probabilities is the only measurable quantity. The Bohmian pilot wave stuff does not add anything interesting, and MWI is nowhere near testable levels. Dynamical collapse due to gravity might become testable soon though, with the “gravcat” states are almost within experimental reach. There is a resurgence of interest in the foundations of QM, see recent work by Sean Carroll, for example, and a recent discussion on Scott Aaronson’s blog. Basically everyone admits that any theoretical progress would require a Kuhnian paradigm shift of epic magnitude, not seen for a century or so.
The issue is not that theorists went off on a wrong path somewhere. It’s that there is no clear “right” path in sight, and every promising avenue of advance faces extreme theoretical and conceptual obstacles.
The logical consequences of Bell’s inequality being violated seems to imply non-local forces or perhaps even more mysterious things are in fact going on. Or alternatively some form of superdeterminism.
I am partial to superdeterminism, as well, since I believe the world being deterministic, but there is no good model of superdeterminism at present that gives rise to Bell inequalities. In fact, it would be far easier to come up with a classical superdeterminism than with quantum one.
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.
You (or Maudlin or somebody) need to explain what is so terrible about non locality and indeterminism. I don’t buy arguments from “visualisation” because I don’t see what’s so special.about the human visual system.
There is nothing ‘terrible’ about non locality. Was that implied somewhere? (Maudlin implied Einstein thought it was perhaps ‘terrible’ though it certainly doesn’t seem like he shares the sentiment, nor do I)
If you object to neither indeterminism, nor non-locality, what is the problem?
Please don’t answer “it’s irrational”.
You were the one who started this comment thread? What are you inquiring about?
If you are confused about what Maudlin believes the problems are I would recommend reading his review. In short he seems to have believed there are many problems in many different aspects of fundamental physics and the progress of science, though since I don’t know the man personally I wont presume to know more.
I did read the review. In the review , he treats indeterminism and non locality as bad things that need to be avoided. But he doesn’t say why. So I don’t think the review me few anything (none of his other points are strong either).
If you don’t think the review contains anything valid, why did you post it?
You appear to not understand the comments I have left, or his essay, or both. He does not express a problem with ‘non locality’ or ‘indeterminism’, as far as I can tell. He references OTHER people who seem to have such a stance.
It doesn’t matter who says it, it matters whether it valid or not.
It doesn’t matter who says it, it matters whether it valid or not.
Then why do you think the review is ‘invalid’ if you acknowledge the author doesn’t share the opinion?
It matters whether the argument is valid. Validity comes form the argument, not the person making it.
Yes, so you understand that reviews cannot be ‘valid‘ or ‘invalid’ independent of the arguments advanced within them? And you understand that neither the original author, nor myself, advanced an argument about the ’terribleness’ of non-locality, indeterminism, etc.? Then everything should be clear?