- #1
- 14,179
- 6,666
Let us introduce a new rule. You can criticize any QM interpretation you want, but to avoid too much philosophy the argument must be extremely concise. For definiteness, it may contain maximally 2 sentences, 1 equation and 1 reference. The general rule is - less is more.
Here is my take. In the following I criticize various interpretations by reducing them to absurd in just 1 or 2 sentences.
Logical positivism:
The meaning is meaningless.
Quantum logic and consistent histories:
QM is logically consistent, provided that the rules of logic are denied.
Statistical ensemble interpretation:
Individual measurement outcomes exist, but QM has nothing to say about them. Therefore QM is complete.
QBism, relational and other information-type versions of Copenhagenish interpretations:
We do not say that there is no objective reality out there. We say that there are no any problems with this alleged objective reality because it doesn't exist.
Many worlds:
The Universe looks so complex because it is just a point in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, where all points look alike. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447
Here is my take. In the following I criticize various interpretations by reducing them to absurd in just 1 or 2 sentences.
Logical positivism:
The meaning is meaningless.
Quantum logic and consistent histories:
QM is logically consistent, provided that the rules of logic are denied.
Statistical ensemble interpretation:
Individual measurement outcomes exist, but QM has nothing to say about them. Therefore QM is complete.
QBism, relational and other information-type versions of Copenhagenish interpretations:
We do not say that there is no objective reality out there. We say that there are no any problems with this alleged objective reality because it doesn't exist.
Many worlds:
The Universe looks so complex because it is just a point in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, where all points look alike. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447