I Is there any interpretation of QM that doesn't clash with intuition?

[gentzen]

An event localized in space and time is appropiately amplified to bring it to the attention of the experimenter.

Looks like Lord Jestocost "likes" Heisenberg's variant of Copenhagen:

The version by Heisenberg and his "pupils" (Weizsäcker, Peierls, ...) is inherently subjective, hence the causal sequence is when the subject learns the information, and updates his expectations.

In the "other" thread, Morbert and Fra showed "appreciation" for Bohr's variant of Copenhagen:

Quick reflection on the book looking at chapter 12.

Peres writings is very good, I like them, but the "sharpness" still rests on a few concepts that conceptually take the "role" of the heisenberg cut, some of the keys are

"Consistency thus requires the measuring process to be irreversible. There are no superobservers in our physical world."
Peres, p366

What you can learn about "my own opinion" from this is that I like to keep Bohr's and Heisenberg's variant of Copenhagen separate. I once also tried to find out who created that mess:

The idea that the "Copenhagen interpretation" should be the common core of the beliefs by Bohr and Heisenberg probably goes back to Henry P. Stapp in 1972.

Later I read articles which disagree with that guess. Not really sure. I mean, Heisenberg could have stopped him. Or Wheeler. Maybe they didn't realize how different Bohr's views actually were, because "Bohr himself was famously unable to express himself clearly". Even today, QBists cite Bohr as if he would agree with their views. OK, Chris Fuchs stopped doing this at some point, and distanced himself from Bohr. But Mermin never distanced himself from Bohr, as far as I know.

 

[Fra]

What you can learn about "my own opinion" from this is that I like to keep Bohr's and Heisenberg's variant of Copenhagen separate.

I know they had different perspectives, but what I consider CI today, is what seems to be the conceptual conjuction of their views; once residual disagreement is shaved off. But I admit that I think this conjuction may be afterwards construct. I have not studied the historical text to know.

From from the perspective of today and my preferred interpretation, these differences are not very important to me. Copenhagen, instrumental, statistical, are all good default interpretations for me, from where i stand, they have more in common than what separates them. But they all share also the same "conceptual problem". But I don't expect that as QM was born, these conceptual problems was priority. I see a disturbing hairball that if we splitting individual hairs make no big difference. The problem is much bigger than the small difference between sub-interpretations.

But I just perceive Bohr's way of putting as honest with the "inference situation", which is helpful when you want to go back for conceptual debugging.

/Fredrik

 

[gentzen]

I know they had different perspectives, but what I consider CI today, is what seems to be the conceptual conjuction of their views; once residual disagreement is shaved off.

I changed my mind. I guess I was too much influenced by Henry Stapp, despite disagreeing with him:

... the wikipedia article "implicitly proposes" a solution to the whole conundrum surrounding the Copenhagen interpretation:

In a 1960 review of Heisenberg's book, Bohr's close collaborator Léon Rosenfeld called the term an "ambiguous expression" and suggested it be discarded.[22] However, this did not come to pass, and the term entered widespread use.[16][19] Bohr's ideas in particular are distinct despite the use of his Copenhagen home in the name of the interpretation. [23]

Instead of trying to fit Bohr's ideas into the Copenhagen interpretation, or distinguishing between Heisenberg's and Bohr's variant of the Copenhagen interpretation, simply take the ideas of Heisenberg and his pupils as the Copenhagen interpretation, and let Bohr's ideas find a better home.

Bohr's ideas and views should be liberated from association with the Copenhagen interpretation. And the Copenhagen interpretation should take full responsibility for being subjective, without hidding behind Bohr's ideas.

Copenhagen, instrumental, statistical, are all good default interpretations for me, from where i stand, they have more in common than what separates them.

Do you think that Bohr's ideas are a mixture between instrumental and statistical? At least his ideas make sense from the perspective of a statistical interpretation. On the other hand, most of Bohr's attitudes don't mesh well with instrumentalism, even if Bohr occasionally hid behind instrumentalistic positions.

 

[Fra]

Do you think that Bohr's ideas are a mixture between instrumental and statistical? At least his ideas make sense from the perspective of a statistical interpretation. On the other hand, most of Bohr's attitudes don't mesh well with instrumentalism, even if Bohr occasionally hid behind instrumentalistic positions.

I can elaborate later but as i see everything from and inference perspective, i view bohrs reference to classical background as a general statment of that the inference machinery (which IS statistics from instruments - what else?) Is rooted and encoded in a solid context (classical world). This i interpret conceptually, as inference system needs som "hardware". So the quantum system is the "black box". And any inquiry (preparation and perturbation) are built solidly in the "background" - which we can give many names.. observer, classical realm, or maybe prior information.

Instrumentalism without thinkning about where and how the physical instruments are built is naive. Also if the instruments are our obly probea into the black box, then the nature and rooting of them does have fundamental implications on what we can say about nature.

I see more harmony than conflicts here. Also any statiatical information processing needs physical basis. Results need to be reliably stored and processed. Again bohrs classical realm is where it happens.

/Fredrik

 

[sbrothy]

With the The Montevideo Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: a short review all I have to go on is more or leas intuition (as I’m not as strong in math as you guys), but as I’ve said a million times before: intuition is a bad measure for correctness.

This interpretation really speaks to common sense and yeah well… intuition.

 

[sbrothy]

With the The Montevideo Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: a short review all I have to go on is more or leas intuition (as I’m not as strong in math as you guys), but as I’ve said a million times before: intuition is a bad measure for correctness.

This interpretation really speaks to common sense and yeah well… intuition.

Also, Scott Aaronson seems to believe that it makes testable predictions:

Jorge Pullin sent me an email responding to my question and to Ron Maimon's criticisms. In case people are interested, I'm posting it here with Jorge's kind permission. I particularly appreciated his clarification that the Montevideo interpretation is not really an "interpretation" at all, but new physics that makes new and different testable predictions. In particular, in Jorge and Rodolfo's view, the argument they give involving clocks is "motivational" in character; they're not claiming it as a derivation from accepted principles of quantum gravity. --Scott

---- Can the Montevideo interpretation of quantum mechanics do what it claims? (Physics Stack Exchange)

I'm a little sceptical about this, as this is not normally what you associate with QM interpretations, but I'm not so arrogant that I want to get into a discussion with Scott Aaronson! Someone else may perhaps have an opinion on this.

EDIT: Ah, I see there's yet again a pretty vehement disagreement in the discussion...