Which Quantum Interpretation could make a difference?by Gerenuk Tags: difference, interpretation, quantum 

#37
Jan1812, 02:01 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491

I think Ken wants to say that, even though all local interpretations of QM contain some "but", the "but" of the consistent histories interpretation is the biggest one. And I would agree with that.




#38
Jan1812, 08:50 AM

PF Gold
P: 113

Regarding the claim: 



#39
Jan1812, 09:33 AM

PF Gold
P: 3,072

What's interesting is that if we open the door to different types of reasoning itself, not just different sets of propositions, we have a radically altered version of what physics itself is supposed to be. I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, I'm saying we should do that quite hesitantly! I would view that as a kind of lastresort flavor of "but." To give you some idea, what if we said that "fuzzy logic" was also a potentially valid type of reasoning to base physics on? To some extent we already do this we label things as "laws" that we know are not infinitely precise. But we can say that we are not using different logic, because we can set an accuracy target that our laws need to work within, without requiring they be exact, on the grounds that they idealize the reality. That's not fuzzy logic, it's precise logic applied to idealized outcomes.
Now, if we encounter a "law" that works a random 99% of the time, and fails a random 1% of the time, regarding that as a law is fuzzy logic. If we ever really encountered something like that, we might be forced to alter the types of logic we accept in physics, but most physicists would be loathe to do that they would say we need to look more carefully at that 1% and find some causative influence that is now being treated as random. So we recognize a difference between a law that makes statistical predictions, versus a law that itself has only a probability of being true. We hold the line as much as possible on our reasoning processes, even as we have to give ground on what we expect from our laws. 



#40
Jan1912, 09:44 AM

PF Gold
P: 113

Later in the above paper they observe that 



#41
Jan1912, 12:46 PM

PF Gold
P: 3,072




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Does it make a difference?  Academic Guidance  9  
Does Pauli Exclusion still make sense when the particle interpretation fails?  High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics  1  
The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics  Quantum Physics  1  
Can one man make a difference?  General Discussion  9 