it doesn't work in the most straightforward way, and theÄifferent aspects of one underlying, four-dimensional thing. no, that's a very natural way to go, and that's along the lines that einstein would have been thinking back in the 1920s. so why is that an incorrect analogy? why can't we just say the same thing about wave function? and to your second point about where do we find the classical world, again in probability theory we have the concentration of measured phenomenon, that the sample size goes infinity, variance goes to zero, so maybe the classical world is just an infinite example of the world and so that's why - are so stable. but with respect to the measurement problem, when we do something simple like a survey, you know, we have a point estimate and there's a confidence around it, and we don't consider that controversying bejust - controversial, we don't think there's thousands of oh worlds in which it could be different. I thought of an analogy which is probably wrong, i'm just trying to understand why it's wrong.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |