If a tree falls in the woods...

WaveJumper

I have not seen an interpretation that i would embrace as true. There is something fundamentally missing from our knowledge of reality and all these interpretational efforts are kind of premature and incomplete(bordeing on religion). We need a theory of QG and new insights into the nature of space and time, before an interpretation starts to fit the greater picture more convincingly, IMO.

WaveJumper

This is how science works - making conclusions(often wrong) from incomplete evidence. You could say this is what gives us an edge over other animals and lets us predict phenomena and make progress.

disregardthat

I can agree with you on the Many-worlds theory, but I find the Copenhagen Interpretation to be a rational view.

Dmitry67

Copenhagen? The abandoned one? Ha ha!

baywax

I don't know. Animals make predictions about the kinds of phenomena that might be on the other side of a log before they jump over it. Then they deal with the reality once they hit the other side. They wouldn't be making the leap if they didn't have a fairly good calculation and prediction of what they were jumping into. (We are still in the philosophy section, right?!!)

In fact sometimes we could learn methods of prediction from animals. Here's one possibility.

http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/...tract/90/2/312

disregardthat

"abandoned"?

Dmitry67

Yes. MWI is now the #1.
Recently there was a good thread in this forum... damn, I dont remember the title about the CI... nobody here is seriously defending the CI. Anybody, what was the thread title?

WaveJumper

I think the problem with establishing what reality is, lies elsewhere and deeper. If it's about personal beliefs, I think matter, space, and time are as real as the colour 'red' and the solidity of matter, i.e. they are wrong/misleading interpretations of something greater and much different than we've been able to account for so far. Because all the interpretation of the 'outside' reality happens somehow in the brain, and we have no way to directly verify how true and correct that interpretation is(though its consensual), and experiments have been proving time and again that the interpretational mechanism in what is perceived as 'brain' is often flawed, it is necessary to put to test everything that is 'automatically' interpreted as true. The concepts of matter, space and time have failed to stand to the test of our perception so far.

I'd say that I believe only fields exist and some kind of awareness that turns those dynamical fields into an interpreted classical reality - the netbook i hold in my lap, the room i am in, the planet we are on, ... it's all interpretation in my head. Wrong at that. My perspective is that we shouldn't ascribe too much importance to automatic interpretations. It is the task of science to establish the truthfulness of the perceptions and the interpretations. So far, there have been far too many experiments that contradict our in-built interpretations of what exists out there, to continue to hold onto what is termed 'realism'. What interests me most is what lies behind the interpretation of matter, space and time. What are the fields, what are they made from and what is the awareness that generates for me the often contradictory reality we perceive as classical?

We won't account for consciousness with a flawed version/interpretation of what's out there. Ever. And this consciousness/awareness being the interpretor of the supposed outside reality of fields, is IMO a contributor to the paradoxes and a possible solution to foundational problems in physics - time running only in one direction, time flowing, distance between objects(locality vs non-locality), localised objects, all the weirdness of QM, somethings out of nothings, etc. i think are flaws of our interpretation of what's out there. The macro world of fixed, immutable objects in space is a mirage, a phantasm created by awareness that we seem to be. This is somewhat inline with Wheeler's participatory universe, but it deviates on some other important points.

disregardthat

The copenhagen interpretion is not a realist view at all. It is actually quite similar to an instrumentalist view (purely pragmatic). It says only about how we should/can interpret the information given, not what the information says about some external world. One of its main points is the focus on how our consciousness can comprehend the world and understand observations. Of course the interpretation is not definite, it is a view under constant change, but it's main points are somewhat like I can agree with. The changes of it are for the better I think. It is very similar to a Kantian perspective.

The many-worlds theory is a realist and deterministic view however, and I don't find it appealing at all.

It doesn't matter what most scientists subscribe to That the many-worlds theory is the most popular one is irrelevant. It is not at all "abandoned", many scientists still subscribe to CI.

WaveJumper

In 20, 50 or 100 years the people who believe in realism(objects having definite existence in space) will be able to cramp into a mid-size car.

disregardthat

What?

WaveJumper

How many people can board a mid-size car?

disregardthat

I won't participate in your games

WaveJumper

...is the same as saying:

"In 20, 50 or 100 years the people who believe in realism(objects having definite existence in space) will be 4 or 5", i.e. they will fit into a mid-size car.

disregardthat

I doubt it. Realism is a persistent view.

You said something like "matter, space and time is a real as the color red". I don't agree with this. It is not that matter, space and time are "things" beyond human recognition, but that they are fundamental to human experience. Kant argued that we cannot transcend the notion of time and space in our experience, not even in our concepts. Hence a copenhagen-like perspective. I'm not talking about an external reality (which we cannot speak of), but the basis of human conception and perception. The color red differs from the concepts of space and time because color is not a necessary form in which perception and conception must take.

WaveJumper

I didn't say colour red was matter or space. I meant that their reality is comparable, i.e. they are interpretations of the inteactions of quantum fields(as best as we can tell) by the interpreting mechanism inside your head.

disregardthat

That's not what I meant. Red differs in essence form time and space is perhaps wording myself better. The point is the time and space are forms in which experience and conception must take, whereas color isn't. They differ in this way, not in terms of equality. Time and space are also interpretations (and forms of conception) in our brain, but this doesn't mean they don't function as parts of the fundamental structure conception and interpretation of experience must have.