Puzzled or disturbed by the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and its 
weird implications?

Here's a different take; forget about quantum wave function collapse as 
a result of measurements; forget about spooky instantaneous effects 
across space; forget about measurements being irreversible in time; 
heck, even forget about the world being real - if anything, it's complex:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc&feature=related

To me this actually makes some sense.

Post a reply to this message

I would expect no less from such a bright Lisper. ;) (his other Google Talk
about debugging a Lisp system running a spacecraft orbiting Jupiter is well
worth it too)

That was like quantum myth busters.  We need more of these guys to debunk stuff
with down to earth arguments and experiments. :)

All things considered, there is no spoon, my fellow simcitizen...

Post a reply to this message

On 6/24/2012 19:05, clipka wrote:
> To me this actually makes some sense.

It's a bit over my head, but I don't think saying "the math that describes 
THIS is the same as the math that describes THAT, therefore they're the same 
thing" really works.

Heck, that's what confused people into talking about "wave particle duality" 
in the first place.

Plus, the math he's talking about is pretty straightforward, so it's not 
surprising that more than one phenomenon can be described with it.

I'm not real sure I understand the "zero universes" statement he's trying to 
assert either. Is he trying to say there are no particles, only 
entanglements, or something?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 6/28/2012 5:50 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I'm not real sure I understand the "zero universes" statement he's
> trying to assert either. Is he trying to say there are no particles,
> only entanglements, or something?

(note, IANAP, so treat what follows as being written with a degree of 
awareness of the fallibility of my own assessments.)

 From what I can gather I think that's sort of what he's going for.  I'd 
phrase it as "classical reality is an illusion arising from the nature 
of entanglement."  I can't really give any more detail than this, and 
I'm not entirely sure that he could either, since at no point did I get 
the impression that he's particularly knowledgeable about what he's 
talking about.

His "grand conclusion" that measurement, if mathematically modeled in 
QM, creates an entanglement between the measured entity and the 
measuring device is a pretty well-known, so it's a bit baffling that he 
treats the philosophical conclusions he draws from it as so self-evident 
(unless or course he's just ignorant of the scientific and philosophical 
context).  Not that they're *necessarily* wrong mind you, but they're 
one of many ways of interpreting the mathematics.

Post a reply to this message