[ExI] teachers

Wed Aug 30 13:31:10 UTC 2023

There is this other parallel between accepting MW and Heliocentrism:

Even Copernicus framed his theory as just a useful calculating device, and
that it shouldn't be taken as literally true.

 He wrote:

"Since the newness of the hypotheses of this work--which sets the earth in
motion and puts an immovable sun at the centre of the universe--has already
received a great deal of publicity, I have no doubt that certain of the
savants have taken grave offense and think it wrong to raise any
disturbance among liberal disciplines which have had the right set-up for a
long time now. If, however, they are willing to weigh the matter
scrupulously, they will find that the author of this work has done nothing
which merits blame.
For it is the job of the astronomer to use painstaking and skilled
observation in gathering together the history of the celestial movements,
and then--since he cannot by any line of reasoning reach the true causes of
these movements--to think up or construct whatever causes or hypotheses he
pleases such that, by the assumption of these causes, those same movements
can be calculated from the principles nf geometry for the past and for the
future too. This artist is markedly outstanding in both of these respects:
for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even
probably; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the
observations. [...]
For it is sufficiently clear that this art is absolutely and profoundly
ignorant of the causes of the apparent irregular movements. And if it
constructs and thinks up causes--and it has certainly thought up a good
many--nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of
their truth but only in order that they may provide a correct basis for
calculation."

Of course, he also didn't want to run afoul of Church authorities which may
explain why his work wasn't published until after his death.

But this is an interesting historical parallel.

The other being that people's distaste for MW seems rooted in the same
prejudice people of Copernicus's day used to reject heliocentrism: "You
mean there are *whole other worlds* up there in the sky? Why would there be
all that stuff out there which we'll never see or interact with, why would
(God/nature) bother making all that? It seems so wasteful and unnecessary."

It happened with stars in 1838, galaxies in 1920, branches in 1957, big
bangs in 1980, string theories in 2003. Nature continues to surprise us
with just how big reality is.

Jason

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:30 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 7:54 AM BillK via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 10:00, efc--- via extropy-chat
>> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello Adrian and Jason,
>> >
>> > I don't think that anyone here actually believes the universe is
>> > conspiring against anyone, but my interpretation is that it is just a
>> way
>> > to convey meaning.
>> > Perhaps we could find a less loaded term?
>> >
>> > Best regards, Daniel
>> >_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Perhaps a review might help the discussion.
>> I asked an AI -
>> How do different interpretations of quantum mechanics address the
>> measurement problem?
>>
>> Reply -
>> Different interpretations of quantum mechanics address the measurement
>> problem in various ways. The measurement problem refers to the
>> fundamental issue of how a quantum system transitions from a
>> superposition of multiple states to a single definite state when it is
>> measured or observed.
>>
>> 1. Copenhagen Interpretation: The Copenhagen interpretation, developed
>> by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, is one of the most well-known
>> interpretations of quantum mechanics. According to this
>> interpretation, the act of measurement causes the wavefunction to
>> collapse into one of the possible eigenstates of the observable being
>> measured. The collapse is seen as a random process, and the
>> probabilities of different outcomes are given by the Born rule.
>> However, the Copenhagen interpretation does not provide a clear
>> explanation for why and how the collapse occurs.
>>
>> 2. Many-Worlds Interpretation: Proposed by Hugh Everett III in 1957,
>> the Many-Worlds interpretation suggests that when a measurement is
>> made, the universe splits into multiple branches, each corresponding
>> to a different outcome of the measurement. In this interpretation, all
>> possible outcomes exist simultaneously in separate branches of
>> reality. This means that there is no actual collapse of the
>> wavefunction; rather, it continues to evolve unitarily without any
>> discontinuity. Each branch represents a different possibility, and all
>> possibilities are realized in different parallel universes.
>>
>> 3. Pilot-Wave Theory (De Broglie-Bohm Theory): The pilot-wave theory,
>> also known as the de Broglie-Bohm theory or Bohmian mechanics, was
>> developed by Louis de Broglie and David Bohm in the 1950s. According
>> to this interpretation, particles have both a particle-like aspect and
>> a wave-like aspect. The wavefunction guides the motion of particles
>> through a guiding equation called the pilot wave equation. In this
>> view, measurements are not fundamentally different from other
>> interactions between particles; they simply reveal pre-existing
>> properties that were determined by initial conditions and hidden
>> variables.
>>
>> 4. Objective Collapse Theories: Objective collapse theories propose
>> that the wavefunction collapses spontaneously due to some physical
>> process. These theories introduce non-linear and stochastic
>> modifications to the Schrödinger equation to account for the collapse.
>> Examples of objective collapse theories include the GRW theory
>> (Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber) and the Penrose interpretation, which suggests
>> that quantum gravity plays a role in the collapse.
>>
>> 5. Quantum Bayesianism (QBism): QBism, developed by Christopher Fuchs
>> and Rüdiger Schack, takes a subjective view of quantum mechanics. It
>> treats probabilities as personal degrees of belief rather than
>> objective properties of the physical world. According to QBism,
>> measurement outcomes are not determined by an external reality but are
>> instead reflections of an agent's personal beliefs and experiences.
>>
>> 6. Information-Theoretic Interpretations: Some interpretations, such
>> as the information-theoretic interpretations, focus on the role of
>> information in quantum mechanics. These interpretations suggest that
>> quantum states represent information about possible measurement
>> outcomes, and measurements update our knowledge or information about
>> the system rather than causing a collapse of the wavefunction.
>>
>> It is important to note that these interpretations are not mutually
>> exclusive, and there are many other interpretations of quantum
>> mechanics beyond those mentioned above. Each interpretation offers its
>> own perspective on how to address the measurement problem, but none
>> have been universally accepted or proven to be definitively correct.
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> This points out that quantum mechanics is still undergoing much
>> discussion and has not been resolved yet.
>> It seems best to remain 'agnostic' in the face of so many different
>> interpretations.
>> It will be a real breakthrough for humanity when quantum mechanics and
>> the true nature of reality is understood.
>>
>
>
> We're in that awkward 100-year period between when Copernicus published
> his heliocentric view and the time by which everyone had come to accept it
> as obviously true.
>
> It's only been 66 years since Everett explained the appearance of collapse
> is a natural result even if it never happened at all and the Shrodinger
> equation was true always. So we have a ways to go. With luck we will have
> undisputably conscious AI and large scale quantum computers within 34 years.
>
>
> As to the other interpretations:
>
> Pilot wave: Bohm later admitted his theory is a many worlds theory. All
> the other branches must necessarily still exist in his formulation.
>
> Objective collapse: all deny the Shrodinger equation and hence are not
> interpretations of QM, but mathematically distinct and separate theories.
> They also predict quantum computers will reach a scaling limit. Note: there
> is no experimental evidence supporting any of these theories, so they are
> unjustified under Occam.
>
> QBism/information-theoretic/shut-up-and-calculate: I lump all these
> together because they all share the same problem. They deny or ignore
> reality. That seems fine, until you  ask, "how does a calculating tool, or
> a statement regarding my knowledge or ignorance, *do* anything? How does my
> 'knowledge state' factor a 10,000 digit semiprime?" There can be no answer
> to such annoying questions, hence  the "shut up and calculate". It's the
> ostrich's head in the sand approach to the difficult questions of quantum
> mechanics.
>
> Jason
>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230830/952c38fc/attachment.htm>