I'll take what you said about me as a compliment! Muchas gracias.

I don't understand quantum mechanics enough to explain it. Have a look at Prof. O'Dowd's video:

Merci beaucoup!

I'll take what you said about me as a compliment! — Agent Smith

What has covid done to you these days?

What has covid done to you these days? — L'éléphant

I dunno! I'd need to undergo a battery of tests to find out, something I don't have time for. I should've taken a picture pre-Covid and then one post-Covid. I would've got a rough idea about what Covid does to people.

Merci beaucoup! — Agent Smith

De nada.

I should've taken a picture pre-Covid and then one post-Covid. I would've got a rough idea about what Covid does to people. — Agent Smith

Okay that, too. But I meant to your mind or attitude.

Okay that, too. But I meant to your mind or attitude — L'éléphant

Unlike computers which can generate self-reports, humans can't or if they attempt to, it all comes out wrong.

@Banno

1. Everybody is right. — Agent Smith

Every statement is true. Ex falso quodlibet. A trivial logic.

2. Everybody else is wrong. — Banno

It is the measurement that collapses the wave function, no consciousness necessary — ArmChairPhilosopher

In the standard interpretation it is the conscious observer who collapses the wavefunction. Only hidden variables offer objective collapse.

Have you watched the video I posted?

Not yet. I only see it now! But all things involving QM are interesting. As a physicist I've aways questioned the standard offer in the two fat Cohen-Tannoudji books, interesting their offered story is, and the same can be said about Ryder's QFT book. Griffiths' introduction to elementary particles is vividly written, with fun and anecdote and a lot of prose besides the math, but it still sticks to the standard. I still wonder why David Bohm's take on QM is put aside. In my opinion it's the only viable approach to QM. So, in honor of Bohm (and his holographic universe), a video for you! I watch yours if you watch mine! :smile:

I still wonder why David Bohm's take on QM is put aside. In my opinion it's the only viable approach to QM. — Hillary

That's the problem. Especially in QM the second option of the OP is valid. Everybody is wrong. Models only ever describe part of reality, the better models describe more of reality or are more precise but we should never confuse the map for the territory.

Agent Smith
2. Everybody else is wrong.
— Banno — Banno

:up:

A frisson of excitement passed through me when I realized how similar relativism/anekantavada is to a trivial system of logic that allows contradictions without making the necessary adjustments to prevent the ex falso quodlibet logic bomb from detonating.

Unlike computers which can generate self-reports, humans can't or if they attempt to, it all comes out wrong. — Agent Smith

Most likely.

Most likely. — L'éléphant

:ok: