Yes, he was an Epsteinite, but his point was generally correct. Einstein, Schrödinger, and Bell all recognized that the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense because it postulates a transition from quantum to classical with no explanation of how this actually occurs. They would not have liked Many Worlds either because it does not actually get rid of the transition, it just claims the classical world is an illusion so it shifts the transition to something happening in your brain, but then doesn’t explain how your brain could possibly create a world of discrete events happening in 3D space from a world where no discrete events ever happen that is just one giant continuous wave evolving in an infinite-dimensional space as there is no clear way to map the latter onto the former. Bell was around when Many Worlds was becoming popularized and so he did comment on it and pointed out it is nonsense and Everett never demonstrated any way to carry out this mapping consistently.
There’s nothing special about the brain in any quantum theory (except pop science).
In many worlds, it’s not so much that the classical world is an illusion, more that it’s a limited perspective, similar to how the “observable” universe is just a limitation of our position, in both cases the theory is that there’s more beyond the edge that we cannot see (and in both cases we have no way to test that).
I don’t think there’s much difference between many worlds and random selection in the end, at least from our perspective. Either way we experience only state contingent on our state, so any quantum superposition that contains us (ok, sure, contains our brain) we can experience only one concrete resolution to, since the others would require our brain to be in a different state. Many worlds adds “but there is a disconnected copy of us experiencing the other valid states after we entered the superposition”, random chance says “and the other states disappeared when the superposition collapsed”, but without reaching past that horizon of our own state they’re measurably identical theories, so either both equally valid or both equally pointless speculation, depending on how strict you want to be.
There’s nothing special about the brain in any quantum theory (except pop science).
I’ve seen theories of quantum mechanics in the brain applied to the philosophy of determinism. Are those physics theories or just philosophical ones? 🤔
Moore describes Schrödinger having a ‘Lolita complex’. He quotes from Schrödinger’s diary from the time where he said that “men of strong, genuine intellectuality are immensely attracted only by women who, forming the very beginning of the intellectual series, are as nearly connected to the preferred springs of nature as they”.
Loved my psych professor. When we went over him she made it VERY clear that we were only doing so because he happened to be influential in the founding of modern psychology, but otherwise he was full of shit and a horrible person.
Edit: I’m an absolute dumbass and somehow mixed up Schrödinger and Freud.
Are you perhaps thinking of someone else? As far as I’m aware, Schrödinger is only well known for work in particle physics, quantum mechanics, and related physics fields.
Freud was definitely influential, and definitely full of shit, so that tracks. Psychoanalysis is completely empirical, written as an unattackable dogma rather than science, and has been proven without any beneficial effect as a treatment on most psychological troubles. But because Freud was so influential, especially in France, almost all French psych universities are teaching his bullshit first and almost exclusively.
Also, the amount of shit he’s written leads to modern day psychoanalysts with absolute horrors of diagnoses like “it’s that kid’s mother’s fault that they have autism, because she loves them wrong”.
Schrödinger hated this cat metaphor, he originally told it to highlight its absurdity.
However, Schrödinger was also a devout pedophile and rapist, so I take glee every time his cat is referenced. Fuck him.
Yes, he was an Epsteinite, but his point was generally correct. Einstein, Schrödinger, and Bell all recognized that the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense because it postulates a transition from quantum to classical with no explanation of how this actually occurs. They would not have liked Many Worlds either because it does not actually get rid of the transition, it just claims the classical world is an illusion so it shifts the transition to something happening in your brain, but then doesn’t explain how your brain could possibly create a world of discrete events happening in 3D space from a world where no discrete events ever happen that is just one giant continuous wave evolving in an infinite-dimensional space as there is no clear way to map the latter onto the former. Bell was around when Many Worlds was becoming popularized and so he did comment on it and pointed out it is nonsense and Everett never demonstrated any way to carry out this mapping consistently.
There’s nothing special about the brain in any quantum theory (except pop science).
In many worlds, it’s not so much that the classical world is an illusion, more that it’s a limited perspective, similar to how the “observable” universe is just a limitation of our position, in both cases the theory is that there’s more beyond the edge that we cannot see (and in both cases we have no way to test that).
I don’t think there’s much difference between many worlds and random selection in the end, at least from our perspective. Either way we experience only state contingent on our state, so any quantum superposition that contains us (ok, sure, contains our brain) we can experience only one concrete resolution to, since the others would require our brain to be in a different state. Many worlds adds “but there is a disconnected copy of us experiencing the other valid states after we entered the superposition”, random chance says “and the other states disappeared when the superposition collapsed”, but without reaching past that horizon of our own state they’re measurably identical theories, so either both equally valid or both equally pointless speculation, depending on how strict you want to be.
I’ve seen theories of quantum mechanics in the brain applied to the philosophy of determinism. Are those physics theories or just philosophical ones? 🤔
…devout??
I said what I meant.
Schrödinger’s Personal life
yuck. he apparently groomed a 14yo he was tutoring and eventually got her pregnant, and later preyed on a 12yo (per Wikipedia.)
never meet your heroes.
I’m starting to think the pigeon wasn’t so bad
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeshh
ohno
Loved my psych professor. When we went over him she made it VERY clear that we were only doing so because he happened to be influential in the founding of modern psychology, but otherwise he was full of shit and a horrible person.
Edit: I’m an absolute dumbass and somehow mixed up Schrödinger and Freud.
Are you perhaps thinking of someone else? As far as I’m aware, Schrödinger is only well known for work in particle physics, quantum mechanics, and related physics fields.
Don’t forget his contribution to paedomechanics.
No, I think I am. I have somehow confused Schrödinger for Freud.
Wow. Brains be dumb sometimes.
Freud was definitely influential, and definitely full of shit, so that tracks. Psychoanalysis is completely empirical, written as an unattackable dogma rather than science, and has been proven without any beneficial effect as a treatment on most psychological troubles. But because Freud was so influential, especially in France, almost all French psych universities are teaching his bullshit first and almost exclusively.
Also, the amount of shit he’s written leads to modern day psychoanalysts with absolute horrors of diagnoses like “it’s that kid’s mother’s fault that they have autism, because she loves them wrong”.
The word “devout” in this context threw me so hard.
I’ve seen this exact comment copied/pasted from elsewhere
That was probably me. A sign that I’ve saturated the fediverse with my rant and I should cool it.
Still my first time seeing it. And as a physicist who wants to strive to improve my field we should know these things.
Including the follow up of someone questioning “devout” and getting that quote in response.