- #1
- 901
- 726
I am an applied mathematician working in semiconductor manufacturing. This means stuff like optical lithography, ebeam lithography, resist development processes, etching processes, optical metrology, scanning electron beam metrology, and other related physical or chemical processes. I do work with physicists on a daily basis, but I am not a physicists myself. I took that career path long ago because in my experience, establishing friendly relationships with physicists was easy.
However, that is not the reason why I am here. There recently was a thread Consistent Histories solipsism? in the Quantum Interpretations and Foundations subforum. I subscribed to be able to say some clarifying words about consistent histories, if needed. However, Morbert did a better job than I could have done at clarifying those misconceptions, so there was no need for me to get actively involved. I had tried to publicly defend and clarify consistent histories at one point before:
I fear that if I will happen to make actual contributions here, the pattern will always be that I read something, that it convinced me at least in certain points, and that I will try to defend it at least with respect to the points that I did understand. But my experience tells me that I will probably always be late to the game.
However, that is not the reason why I am here. There recently was a thread Consistent Histories solipsism? in the Quantum Interpretations and Foundations subforum. I subscribed to be able to say some clarifying words about consistent histories, if needed. However, Morbert did a better job than I could have done at clarifying those misconceptions, so there was no need for me to get actively involved. I had tried to publicly defend and clarify consistent histories at one point before:
In hindsight, my more relevant contribution to that discussion (about consequences of the Frauchiger-Renner Paradox) was to mention Craig Gidney
who wrote The Frauchiger-Renner Paradox is a Sleeping Beauty Problem half a year later. For me, this is the most convincing resolution of the paradox I have read so far. Interestingly enough, Craig Gidney is not a physicist either.
I fear that if I will happen to make actual contributions here, the pattern will always be that I read something, that it convinced me at least in certain points, and that I will try to defend it at least with respect to the points that I did understand. But my experience tells me that I will probably always be late to the game.