This Twist on Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox Has Major Implications for Quantum Theory

Barlow

He,Him,Nigguh
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
6,862
Reputation
2,897
Daps
49,077
I’m trying my hardest. But I think I’m too dumb for this :mjcry:
 

KOohbt

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
13,454
Reputation
2,175
Daps
49,531
Reppin
NULL
This quantum shyt ain't fleshed out at all. Lol. But I'm more inclined to think that the observer shyt isn't nothing but some ego shyt.
 

Jimmy from Linkedin

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,339
Reputation
1,556
Daps
7,037
Reppin
Managing Director at Breh & Breh, Inc
I really enjoyed this article. Only understood a little bit but this part really got me.

In contrast, a relative newcomer on the block called the QBism interpretation embraces the probabilistic element of quantum theory wholeheartedly (QBism, pronounced “cubism,” is actually short for quantum Bayesianism, a reference to 18th-century mathematician Thomas Bayes’s work on probability.) QBists argue that a person can only use quantum mechanics to calculate how to calibrate his or her beliefs about what he or she will measure in an experiment. “Measurement outcomes must be regarded as personal to the agent who makes the measurement,” says Ruediger Schack of Royal Holloway, University of London, who is one of QBism’s founders.

I've sort of been coming to this recently and it's really cool to see that there is a lot of this.

From wikipedia:

For example, in this interpretation, a quantum state is not an element of reality—instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements. For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism.[3][4] The originators of the interpretation disagree with this characterization, proposing instead that the theory more properly aligns with a kind of realism they call "participatory realism", wherein reality consists of more than can be captured by any putative third-person account of it.

Very quickly we've moved from the "hard" science of QM to metaphysics, experimental metaphysics, like they suggested in the article. Often though, IMO, we participate in this "participatory realism" more often than we think, like with law for example, where everything is based not only on the precedents, but then also on the interpretation of the argument of the litigators by the judge.

This is very very awesome. I don't understand much but it definitely got the gears turning. +dap/rep!
 
Top