[ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology
scerir at alice.it
Wed Oct 20 19:32:36 UTC 2010
> Interesting take Isabelle. Quantum mechanics has features like your notion:
> phenomena that cannot be measured directly without significantly altering
> that which is being measured. I can't even ponder QM without getting
> completely mind boggled. I don't understand it, nor why god would be such a
> bastard as to set it up that way, assuming she had any choice in the matter.
Scott Aaronson wrote something about the "quantum" as an "operating system".
<<So, what is quantum mechanics? Even though it was discovered by physicists, it's not a
physical theory in the same sense as electromagnetism or general relativity. In the usual
"hierarchy of sciences" -- with biology at the top, then chemistry, then physics, then
math -- quantum mechanics sits at a level between math and physics that I don't know a
good name for. Basically, quantum mechanics is the operating system that other physical
theories run on as application software (with the exception of general relativity, which
hasn't yet been successfully ported to this particular OS). There's even a word for taking
a physical theory and porting it to this OS: "to quantize.">>
Of course following this concept one could also ask if the "quantum" is the best available
operating system, or not .... and why. (Einstein used to say something like "I wish to
know if God had free will, or not, when he created these laws.")
Serafino: But if quantum mechanics is an "operating system", or a 'syntax', does it make
any sense to interpret quantum mechanics?
Scott: I like that, serafino: "The Interpretation of Windows XP." At the risk of sounding
like some Continental philosopher smoking his pipe and uttering vacuous profundities: the
basic goal with interpretations is start from the "syntax" of quantum mechanics, and
connect it to the "semantics" of what we actually experience.
More information about the extropy-chat