by gill1109 » Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:08 pm
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:I wrote a vague statement here for the sake of brevity but others have written precise mathematical statements, and proven precise mathematical theorems. ... Do you want me to give some references?
Please proceed, remember we are looking for precise mathematical theorems proving that Bell's apples are the same as Quantum oranges. There is a tendency to produce apples when oranges are requested, and oranges when apples are requested. I won't be fooled by that trickery.
The presently “best” theory does not need an interpretation if you follow the philosophy “shut up and calculate”.
Let me answer that question for you:
Quantum mechanics is not a theory. It is a mathematical formalism. All the "interpretations" discussion are attempts to develop a theory over the formalism.
Many people believe that the problems of finding a graceful unification of QM and GR are intimately connected to the “interpretation problem” of QM.
I believe the problems have a lot to do with how easy it is for well-meaning physicists to fall into mysticism. GR is a theory but QM is not, so the attempts at unification are misguided. First, a proper theory, with a proper ontology has to be developed, then unification will be easy. Unfortunately, unification will not come from the "main-stream" of Quantum Mechanics.
Many believe they are connected to the Schrödinger cat paradox. Of course, if you are a QBist, then there is no paradox, because everything is in the mind anyway, and all we have is Bayes theorem as the only self-consistent way to update our predictions of our future sensory perceptions. There is no “external reality” in this “interpretation” of QM.
This is all mysticism, including QBism. Besides, you are being unfair to Bayes theorem by linking it so tightly to QBists.
Regarding Boole, I think you are confusing the very well known and basic Boole’s inequality with a simple exercise for the reader somewhere in his huge and not often read book. He gives no solutions to the exercises, there is no instructor’s manual. Not necessary since it is an immediate trivial corollary of the usual “Boole’s inequality”. I think it is a libellous scandal that people should demean J S Bell by supposing that he should have cited an exercise in a 1500 page book from the 19th century, not read by anyone anymore when the inequality in question is just a trivial elementary probability exercise.
Perhaps you have not read Boole carefully. Yet you hold Pitowsky in high regard.
The important thing is, why would Einstein or Bell have thought it physically reasonable to suppose that those four separate real experiments could be thought of, in theory, as four margins of one bigger experiment? EPR gives a careful motivation.
Einstein did no such thing.
But you have no interest in studying what could be the nature of more fundamental (semi-deterministic?) theories which might underlie QM. Just shut up and calculate. QM works so why bother? It’s a valid point of view... but I think a fundamentally unscientific point of view!
As long as you purport to imply what I have interest in, I don't think you have a clue about that. It is better not to assume. In fact, I agree totally that "shut up and calculate it a fundamentally unscientific point of view"! In addition, I also think that suggestions of so-called "fundamental irreducible randomness" belong in the same category. All poppycock.
EPR considers four experiments concerning two separate particles: one in which Q and Q are measured. One in which Q and P are measured. One in which P and Q is measured. One in which P and P are measured. They argue from physical principles that those four experiments are strongly connected to one another at the level of individual outcomes. Add symbols a, b for Alice and Bob. Then EPR argue that the four actual possible experiments
"measure Qa, Qb"
"measure Qa, Pb"
"measure Pa, Qb"
"measure Pa, Pb"
are "reflections" of a not-directly observable reality in which
"Qa, Qb, Pa, Pb" all exist and, moreover get observed if any are measured"
Read some of the QBism work by Chris Fuchs and many others to find out why Qbism is called Qbism. They "immerse" the rules of conventional QM in the de Finetti approach to probability theory in which the laws of probability including Bayes theorem are derived from axioms of rational behaviour of an agent who has to make decisions in the face of uncertainty.
They have an interpretation of probability theory, and then consistently interpret QM from within that point of view.
I agree entirely with your statement "GR is a theory but QM is not, so the attempts at unification are misguided. First, a proper theory, with a proper ontology has to be developed, then unification will be easy. Unfortunately, unification will not come from the "main-stream" of Quantum Mechanics."
I have read the publications of Bell, Boole, Pitowsky and many others very very carefully.
I am not looking for precise mathematical theorems proving that Bell's apples are the same as Quantum oranges. Precise theorems already exist, nobody disagrees with the mathematics, and they do not do what you suggest they do; they do something a little bit more subtle. With all due respect, I humbly suggest that you might be jumping to preconceived conclusions. Are you interested in references?
[quote="minkwe"][quote="gill1109"]I wrote a vague statement here for the sake of brevity but others have written precise mathematical statements, and proven precise mathematical theorems. ... Do you want me to give some references?[/quote]
Please proceed, remember we are looking for precise mathematical theorems proving that Bell's apples are the same as Quantum oranges. There is a tendency to produce apples when oranges are requested, and oranges when apples are requested. I won't be fooled by that trickery.
[quote]The presently “best” theory does not need an interpretation if you follow the philosophy “shut up and calculate”.[/quote]
Let me answer that question for you: [b]Quantum mechanics is not a theory.[/b] It is a mathematical formalism. All the "interpretations" discussion are attempts to develop a theory over the formalism.
[quote]Many people believe that the problems of finding a graceful unification of QM and GR are intimately connected to the “interpretation problem” of QM.[/quote]
I believe the problems have a lot to do with how easy it is for well-meaning physicists to fall into mysticism. GR is a theory but QM is not, so the attempts at unification are misguided. First, a proper theory, with a proper ontology has to be developed, then unification will be easy. Unfortunately, unification will not come from the "main-stream" of Quantum Mechanics.
[quote]Many believe they are connected to the Schrödinger cat paradox. Of course, if you are a QBist, then there is no paradox, because everything is in the mind anyway, and all we have is Bayes theorem as the only self-consistent way to update our predictions of our future sensory perceptions. There is no “external reality” in this “interpretation” of QM.[/quote]
This is all mysticism, including QBism. Besides, you are being unfair to Bayes theorem by linking it so tightly to QBists.
[quote]Regarding Boole, I think you are confusing the very well known and basic Boole’s inequality with a simple exercise for the reader somewhere in his huge and not often read book. He gives no solutions to the exercises, there is no instructor’s manual. Not necessary since it is an immediate trivial corollary of the usual “Boole’s inequality”. I think it is a libellous scandal that people should demean J S Bell by supposing that he should have cited an exercise in a 1500 page book from the 19th century, not read by anyone anymore when the inequality in question is just a trivial elementary probability exercise. [/quote]
Perhaps you have not read Boole carefully. Yet you hold Pitowsky in high regard.
[quote]The important thing is, why would Einstein or Bell have thought it physically reasonable to suppose that those four separate real experiments could be thought of, in theory, as four margins of one bigger experiment? EPR gives a careful motivation.[/quote]
Einstein did no such thing.
[quote]But you have no interest in studying what could be the nature of more fundamental (semi-deterministic?) theories which might underlie QM. Just shut up and calculate. QM works so why bother? It’s a valid point of view... but I think a fundamentally unscientific point of view![/quote]
As long as you purport to imply what I have interest in, I don't think you have a clue about that. It is better not to assume. In fact, I agree totally that "shut up and calculate it a fundamentally unscientific point of view"! In addition, I also think that suggestions of so-called "fundamental irreducible randomness" belong in the same category. All poppycock.[/quote]
EPR considers four experiments concerning two separate particles: one in which Q and Q are measured. One in which Q and P are measured. One in which P and Q is measured. One in which P and P are measured. They argue from physical principles that those four experiments are strongly connected to one another at the level of individual outcomes. Add symbols a, b for Alice and Bob. Then EPR argue that the four actual possible experiments
"measure Qa, Qb"
"measure Qa, Pb"
"measure Pa, Qb"
"measure Pa, Pb"
are "reflections" of a not-directly observable reality in which
"Qa, Qb, Pa, Pb" all exist and, moreover get observed if any are measured"
Read some of the QBism work by Chris Fuchs and many others to find out why Qbism is called Qbism. They "immerse" the rules of conventional QM in the de Finetti approach to probability theory in which the laws of probability including Bayes theorem are derived from axioms of rational behaviour of an agent who has to make decisions in the face of uncertainty.
They have an interpretation of probability theory, and then consistently interpret QM from within that point of view.
I agree entirely with your statement "GR is a theory but QM is not, so the attempts at unification are misguided. First, a proper theory, with a proper ontology has to be developed, then unification will be easy. Unfortunately, unification will not come from the "main-stream" of Quantum Mechanics."
I have read the publications of Bell, Boole, Pitowsky and many others very very carefully.
I am not looking for precise mathematical theorems proving that Bell's apples are the same as Quantum oranges. Precise theorems already exist, nobody disagrees with the mathematics, and they do not do what you suggest they do; they do something a little bit more subtle. With all due respect, I humbly suggest that you might be jumping to preconceived conclusions. Are you interested in references?
