Do you think the idea of a collapse is on the way out?

There's no way yet. It hasn't been established that there's no way in principle.

It is my understanding that there is no empirical way to determine which, if any, are correct, even in principle — T Clark

That's not true.

Are you serious or sarcastic right now? I think solipsism being true would be the end of any sort of science. — Darkneos

There aren't any quantum theories that assert solipsism afaik.

Sooooo you're saying Quantum Mechanics essentially says solipsism is true? — Darkneos

That's exactly right! What do I have to do to convince you that there's nobody here but me?!

entity realism" asserts the real existence of unobserved entities. — Joshs

Oh. Think about Schrodinger's cat. That about sums up what the Copenhagen interpretation says about unmeasured entities. Today we say measurement doesn't have to involve a conscious entity. Did Bohr know that in 1929? I don't know. It's something that was established long after Bohr's time, but he may have had that intuition.

He provides evidence that Bohr was an entity realist — Joshs

Could you explain what that means?

The point is that these authors believe there is strong overlap in their ideas. You apparently disagree. — Joshs

Kant suggested we're creating that which we call reality. John von Neumann (I think more so than Bohr or Heisenberg) believed something similar. The reasons are pretty different though.

I just disagree that the Copenhagen interpretation can be characterized as an "assimilation of Kant.".

It says that and also speculates on “a direct Kantian influence on Bohr”. So it is suggesting both. — Joshs

Didn't exactly demonstrate that, did it?

Reread my last post in which I quoted your hypocrisy. — 180 Proof

Yeah?

Now look who's talking down ... Projection is a hell of a drug — 180 Proof

I'm a hypocrite. Shoot me.

That should be its sole responsibility, within the bounds of the law. — Xtrix

I don't think the law dictates how society prioritizes its resources (although I'm not sure that's what you meant). Economic policy is usually formed by the legislative and executive branches. Both are in a sense bound by law, but they're also ground zero for the formation of the law, and so above it.

Embedded liberalism was supported by Marxists and socialists. If it had continued to evolve, the US would be more leftist right now. Those who targeted it for destruction claimed that it was collectivism at it's worst and was bound to lead to some kind of slavery in America. The characterization of it as socialist isn't unacceptable.

That quote isn't saying that Bohr was influenced by Kant. It's just saying people have noticed parallels. Wherever those parallels may be, the fact remains that there is no thing in itself in the Copenhagen interpretation. It's actually 100 times more bizarre than anything Kant ever thought up.

The idea that we can learn about reality by examining a priori conceptions of time and space is Einstein. If Heisenberg echoed that sentiment, it doesn't indicate Kantian influence.

There are so many variants of realism that different philosophers adhere to that it is possible to accommodate QM within one or more of them. — Joshs

True. My point was that if we want to answer the OP successfully, we should tune into what he or she is thinking of as reality.

As far as the quotes in the OP making what is observed dependent on the existence of the observer, this shows an assimilation of Kant’s work on noumenon and phenomenon , concept and sensation, and the inaccessibility of the thing in itself. — Joshs

I don't think so. The Copenhagen interpretation (especially John von Neumann's view) is not Kant. There is no thing in itself. There is no determinate thing prior to wave function collapse, and we have a clear idea of the math that describes what's there prior to collapse.

I suspect it would hurt them even more if hope triumphed. — Olivier5

Why?

To argue corporations should conduct their business and decide what to produce based on community needs is socialism through and through. — Xtrix

It's in line with embedded liberalism. The main practical argument for it is that it should protect a capitalist economy from breakdowns like the Great Depression.

It's really an eye opener to learn why this system, which was the norm from 1945-1970 finally failed.

think the wound you speak of is the idea that politicians are all equally bad, and therefore that there can be no hope from politics. This idea is painful to hold, as it tells us we are powerless collectively. Especially so when one sees other folks still believing in a collective or another, and fighting for a cause.

It's cause envy. — Olivier5

Raw nihilism trying to blot out what is perceived as hope, because it hurts too much to see hope killed one more time.

gulp

I think we're lucky we live in a time when physicists agree that physics has a philosophical dimension. I don't think that was true a few decades back.

All of the Spacetime videos are good, and he builds from easy to more advanced over the course of several videos, which helps.

Yes, this is the view I find incomprehensible because the whole point is that our big stable things supervene upon the small unstable things. It's not like we can keep them in separate rooms with separate rules, like the rooms of a preschool. — Srap Tasmaner

Right.

Please explain how I am "talking down." — T Clark

That's not really the topic of the thread. Here, look at me being helpful to you:

I disagree — T Clark

Can you not read something about QM and become enlightened on the topic?

The music for this session of Frank's Micro-church:

I say the hell with fascists, whatever their reasons to be fascist. — Olivier5

I've been thinking a lot lately about how people who are hateful are trying to deal with their own wounds. It makes them feel better to be mean.

I get that there are actual psychopaths, but that's not what's usually happening. It's mostly walking wounded, trying to pass their wounds on to somebody else.

I disagree — T Clark

I get that. And you're wrong. QM is not a matter of "different rules for small things."

Check into any quantum theory. And stop talking down to people.

Not really, or perhaps to Russia as a regime. — Olivier5

My theory is that it's because Russia stands opposed to the West. The enemy of my enemy?

I think they're just sympathetic to Russia for various reasons.

I'm American, and would give my life in defense of my country. I still condemn it pretty regularly. It's a stressful balancing act that I'm used to. I think maybe some haven't mastered the technique, so they enter into ambivalence where they really know better.

That's my theory, anyway

As I said, it's not a physics question, it's a metaphysics one. The failure to recognize the difference between everyday or scientific reality and metaphysics is the biggest failure of most posters on the forum. — T Clark

This is squarely false. It is a physics question. There are a number of quantum theories which vary considerably in how they explain quantum experiments, and none of them confirm your folk notions of reality.

You have misrepresented the scientific field in this thread and should by no means be talking down to anyone else.

Exactly. No need to trivialize war crimes. — Olivier5

Yes. The morally appropriate response is condemnation, period

There are ways of accommodating within a a single metaphysics the situation in physics that the world appears to work differently at different scales. — Joshs

Just to clarify, in terms of our folk notions of reality, QM goes far beyond saying that things work differently on a small scale. QM suggests that there is no distinct reality outside measurement events (which don't require consciousness, but human activity is a kind of measurement.)

So when you say physicists are realists, that doesn't necessarily answer the OP. If the OP had some sort of Newtonian picture of the world, then the answer is yes, QM says that a fair portion of that absolute realm is not real.

Where the response to torture is "Yes, everybody does that," there's some moral calibration in order. No, not everybody does that, and those who do are criminals.

It's nauseating.

Yes. If you decide to ignore all counterarguments, that tends to be the outcome. — Isaac

I was trying to put the arguments into words. We ran into a ditch somewhere around expecting Ukraine to accept a compromise that Putin has not offered.

I didn't ask for your assessment. I think you know why.

We shouldn't forget how many Ukrainians have died too. This is a huge conventional war and likely it will cost over 100 000 killed in less than a year, which just tells about the ferocity of the fighting. — ssu

Unbelievable. The region won't recover in our lifetime, huh?

I'll let you have the last word here, if you so desire. — Manuel

Well, my last word is that I was earnestly trying to understand your point of view because you have a history of being remarkably reasonable.

And then I witnessed that times had changed.

Ukraine gets rid of the invaders. Russia keeps Crimea.

Ukraine declares victory against a nuclear power, Russia declares "denazification" successful.

What's negotiated are the cities, which Russia gives back and maybe gets a token piece of territory. — Manuel

Something like that I think could be doable. — Manuel

Manuel, you're not being serious.

I see.

You insist on using the word "surrender". If you say "compromise", then I agree with the last statement. — Manuel

When there's a compromise, both parties walk away with something they wanted. What sort of compromise could there have been during this war?

Ukraine has exceeded expectations by far. — Manuel

I think in large part that's Zelensky.

It's a matter of priority: do you think saving many, many lives is worth stopping the war, or are you confident that escalation will defeat Russia? If you think the latter is the case, then of course you wouldn't want to surrender. My intuitions don't lead to that conclusion. But in geopolitical affairs, people differ and are often wrong about what ends up happening. — Manuel

I'm having trouble following your thinking, which is all I was trying to do.

Your intuitions say that Russia won't be defeated, so Ukraine should have surrendered in order to save lives? I'm just asking.

The line between middle class and rich is vanishing. It is difficult to distinguish a real rich person from a middle class worker. — javi2541997

Spain doesn't have a wealthy elite?