[ExI] Probability is "subjectively objective".

[John K Clark]

"Bryan Bishop" <kanzure at gmail.com>

> What is the most striking in Feynman's version of quantum
> mechanics is his impatience with the wave-particle duality

I'd call it wonder not impatience. And I remind you that it was
Feynman who said "I think it's safe to say nobody understands
Quantum Mechanics".

So if pitiful little creatures like you or me don't understand the
philosophical implications of the wave-particle duality then that's
just tough shit; at least we're smart enough to figure out what
that FACT means when we perform an experiment.

> the results of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox,
> discussed above. Distant particles, whose properties have
> some indeterminate quantum > correlation, "know"
> instantaneously what happens to the other particles

Yes.

> What it means is that the wave function is a physical connection

No. The wave function has no physical counterpoint, it is not even a
probability, it is the square root of a probability, so it can have
imaginary as well as real terms, so two different wave functions can
yield the same probability, and that's why things are so weird.

>its collapse is instantaneous, violating Special Relativity.

No. Special Relativity didn't say nothing could travel faster than light, it
only said matter, energy, or information can't. Yes I can mess with a
particle here and instantly change a particle on the other side of the
universe, but whatever is going on between those 2 particles it's not
made of matter or energy nor can you use it to send information.

> This is the key to Feynman's views:  he [Feynman] likes particles
> and is  not interested in waves.

Feynman was interested in what nature was interested in. He was
never very big on names, one of his favorite words was "stuff",
I don't think he gave a damn if you called them particles or waves;
call them whatever you like as long as you tell me what they do.
Feynman never claimed to have solved any great philosophical
dilemma, and there is little indication he had any interest in doing
so. To hell with philosophy, what Feynman wanted to do was predict
experimental results; and in that he was successful, spectacularly
successful.

   John K Clark