Re:How Two Rebel Physicists Changed Quantum Theory
by zeroonetwothree on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @10:11AM
(#40646371)
I would argue that “shut up and calculate” is correct specifically because QM is a model. What hubris it would take to believe that we’ve discovered how the universe actually works (and there’s the issue of inconsistency with GR).
And since it’s just a model, it doesn’t matter what “interpretation” you pick, since all models are wrong anyway.
Re:How Two Rebel Physicists Changed Quantum Theory
by loup-vaillant on Wednesday June 12, 2024 @08:00AM
(#40657086)
> What hubris it would take to believe that we’ve discovered how the universe actually works
Isn't that what happened with the interpretations that came before many worlds? Weren't most people believing in an actual wave function collapse back then, with basically no one telling them of their hubris?
Genuine question: how soon did the "shut up and calculate" approach, as a refusal to interpret the maths, started getting traction?
If we accept that (I’m not sure I do[1]), then that must be true of all interpretations, including the once most popular, Copenhagen/collapse. And as valuable is the "shut up and calculate" refusal to interpret anything, I suspect it is at least in part a way to avoid the possible demise of the collapse interpretation. A compromise of sorts.
[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DFxoaWGEh9ndwtZhk/decoherenc...