Item — HN Reader

"It doesn't matter whether quantum uncertainty is ontological or epistemological"

It matters for a lot of people, they want to know und understand. And maybe somebody comes up with an experiment.

"What Bell’s Theorem really shows us is that the foundations of quantum theory is a bona fide field of physics, in which questions are to be resolved by rigor- ous argument and experiment, rather than remaining the subject of open-ended debate.

In other words, it is a mistake to crudely divide quantum theory into its practical part and its interpretation, and to think of the latter as metaphysics, experimental or otherwise."

Matt Leifer: "Is the Quantum State Real?..."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1570.pdf

1 comments

> maybe somebody comes up with an experiment.

Yes, it all turns on that. But the point is that coming up with an experiment would in and of itself falsify QM. To call that a major breakthrough would be quite the understatement, and so I predict with great confidence that it is not going to happen any time soon.

> it is a mistake to crudely divide quantum theory into its practical part and its interpretation

That's true, but I am not dividing it crudely. I am simply pointing out things that are logically implied by the mathematical structure of the theory, and one of those things is that quantum measurements bring new information into the world. If anyone figures out a way to access the source of that information, that information would no longer be new, and that would falsify the theory. That is, of course, possible. But again, I'll give long odds against.