Date: 2010-11-30 11:50 pm (UTC)
Ummm... they would be interpreting quantum mechanics? I'm not sure what you're asking here. Wikipedia has a good article on what the issues involved are in interpreting quantum mechanics and why it's one of the largest subfields of Philosophy of Physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The physicists all agree on the math (well, aside from a few nuts), so their work was done a long time ago. But there are still all kinds of unanswered questions about what the best way is to translate the math into English. For example, should we speak about the other branches of the wavefunction as possibilities or actualities? Should you think of the other copies of yourself as "you" or other people? Should you be a realist or an anti-realist about particles, fields, strings, the wavefunction, worlds, etc. (you can answer yes or no to any of those independently). It's a very active an ongoing philosophical debate.

When someone asks me a question like "is quantum mechanics deterministic?" the only answer I can give is that it depends on your interpretation and a whole lot of philosophical assumptions. You can make arguments for or against using the word in different ways, because the word "deterministic" means different things to different people. Only professional philosophers have the time and the perspective to sort through all that and figure out what the best way (or ways) to say it is.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

spoonless: (Default)
Domino Valdano

May 2023

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 25th, 2025 12:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios