Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Draw Your Own Conclusions
Between finishing my latest research paper and debating with S. Spielbergo, I haven't got the time today I'd like to discuss this article in detail. I'm just flagging it up because it links back to earlier thoughts about the various levels of plausibility regarding the nature of the universe. Decide for yourself how convincing it is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Now relocated, I'm catching up on the back issues of your august journal - hope you read comments added to old posts...
Anyway I draw the conclusion that the Copenhagen interpretation is a load of twaddle.
If you want a genuinely mind-boggling explanation for the universe to ponder over your Christmas pud, try this one by Max Tegmark:
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
I expect a witty dismissal of it by New Year :)
Tom
Well, you're the scientist, I'm a big fan of the Copenhagen interpretation purely because it involves probability, and thus every new permutation of the theory fractionally decreases the chance that I will be forced to live on the streets, begging for change and then calculating the resulting distribution of coppers.
As for the MUH, I always get nervous when someone says "sufficiently broad definition of mathematics". It reminds me of a bumper sticker a friend of mine once saw that read "2+2=5, for very large values of 2".
As I understand it QM is inherently probabilistic regardless of the particular interpretation of it you subscribe to, so you shouldn't let your job prospects sway your opinion...
Re: MUH, it struck me as using a fairly narrow definition of mathematics (but I may have got lost in the jargon). Anyway, if you get as far as Section V(D), it confronts (not entirely satisfactorily) the "anything goes" objection.
Tom
Post a Comment