Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I don't understand "could have". Schrodinger's cat lays it on the line.
Either you are an objective realist or you are not; it's that simple.
What you must recognize is that some belief structure is necessary to the
interpretation of Nature. I am a realist; I believe in objective realism
without reservation. Schrodinger's cat in its mixed state is anathema in
my belief structure, but it is a logical interpretation in the Copenhagen
faith. I reject the Copenhagen faith.
Leigh
Interesting arguments and you certainly have good historical company
making them. However, I am still unclear on how a realist interprets
the wave function? What is doing the waving when a wave function
waves? One should take note of the fact that Yakir Aharonov has
recently been making noises about being able to measure the wave
function of a single particle so some statistical ideas may be on
shaky ground. (I heard this in a colloquium about 2 years ago).
Second question: is it necessary for a realist to believe that he is
independent of that which he observes? That's the classical idea but
it isn't clear to me what you are promoting.