Comments on: Against Interpretation

By: My Blogging Statement and Quantum Mechanics « A Diary

My Blogging Statement and Quantum Mechanics « A Diary — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 05:34:18 +0000

[...] QM ได้ โพสท์นี้ได้พูดสิ่งที่น่าสนใจคอนเซปต์ของ [...]

By: Matthew Leifer

Matthew Leifer — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:51:17 +0000

I don’t think I’m mixing things up. I’m just trying to change the question and move the debate on. It seems to me that the traditional “pure interpretation” debate is a dead end. We have several answers and none of them recommend themselves as the unique solution. Therefore, I ask myself whether any “pure interpretation” question has been posed and answered successfully for any other theory in the history of physics. The answer seems to be no – although people have always thought about the foundations of physical theories, the goals of “getting the right picture” and “moving physics forward” have always been closely tied together and never achieved completely independently.

The bottom line is that even if you can come up with an interpretation of quantum mechanics that you believe to be fully consistent and satisfactory, but you do not simultaneously move physics forward, then NO ONE NEED EVER HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE YOU! (and Ulrich, I know you know this from experience.) I can’t emphasize this point enough, so here are a few more exclamation marks!!!!!!!

I do not agree with Fuchs and Peres, although I do share some of the pragmatist convictions that are behind their argument, as is probably apparent from my comments. The bottom line is that these issues ARE mixed up, or more accurately that they OUGHT to be.

By: Ulrich Mohrhoff

Ulrich Mohrhoff — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:13:30 +0000

You are really mixing up things, Matt. One question is whether this or that theory is correct, ultimate, fundamental, or what have you, and an altogether different question is how this or that theory — assumed to be correct, ultimate, fundamental, or what have you — fits in with this or that story that addresses issues that are beyond the ken of physics altogether. Fuchs and Peres have tried before you to argue that “Quantum theory needs no interpretation”. Every mathematical formalism that is supposed to be part of physics needs an interpretation that relates it to the universe, period.

By: tytung

tytung — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:55:44 +0000

Hi, like to comment on this issue.
I think there’s no understanding of a physical theory without interpretation. Beyond the basic meanings of the mathematical terms, what we demand of a physical theory is how it connects with the world, and this is what an interpretation do.
An interpretational framework that has not much influence on practical advance can still be important, provided it is able to make certain aspects of the basic meanings of the theory more natural and intelligible. But I do believe that a good interpretation will not only transform how we view a theory, but also suggest previously hidden ways to improve on (or go beyond) the theory.
However I agree with you on one point, that in our generation the word “interpretation” (and “philosophy”) has a bad name. This may be forgivable for those who engage in the more practical aspects of the theory, but for those who is serious about understanding and meaning, such ignorance is perilous.