bayakiv
- 92
- 8
I see this through the prism of a materialistic interpretation of action in a closed world.
The discussion revolves around the ontology of an electron as it passes through a Stern-Gerlach magnet, exploring the implications of measurement in quantum mechanics. Participants examine the nature of spin, existence, and the limitations of scientific inquiry regarding unmeasured states, touching on interpretations of quantum mechanics and the philosophical implications of these interpretations.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the ontology of quantum mechanics and the implications of measurement. There is no consensus on whether scientific methods can address questions about unmeasured states, and interpretations of quantum mechanics remain a point of contention.
Discussions include references to classical mechanics and its predictive capabilities, contrasting with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. The conversation reflects varying definitions of the scientific method and its applicability to ontology.
That's not an ontology. This situation you describe is exactly why to this day QT has no ontology. Shut up and calculate is not an ontology.martinbn said:That the particles/fields exist, in this example the electron.
What is onltology according to you?EPR said:That's not an ontology. This situation you describe is exactly why to this day QT has no ontology. Shut up and calculate is not an ontology.