View Single Post
skippy1729
#9
Oct1-11, 11:33 PM
P: 148
Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
I'm not sure I would describe Bohm's or Everett's version as "naive". One can argue that there is nothing naive about the concepts of non-locality/non-separability or multiple universes/branches. Moreover, I think the epistemic view argued for by Peres and Fuchs is, in the final analysis, also just another interpretation. And there's arguably even less motivation to take their interpretation any more seriously than any of the others. In fact, one might have less motivation because to view physics as the "science of meter reading" doesn't look particularly rewarding, I think.
Perhaps "naive" was a poor choice of words. I should have said "clever and sophisticated theories desperately clinging to a naive classical reality".

I also don't think "science of meter reading" is an accurate description of searching for understanding of the universe without the baggage of accepting unobservable entities as a matter of faith.

Skippy