Looking at the angles of your pics, it looks like I may have been seated quite close to where you were Indi.

1. You haven’t provided a link to where your “Copenhagen-consistent histories” is properly described. This shouldn’t be hard as “vast majority of those of us who’ve actually studied QM as a subject tend to stick to a collapse interpretation……The most common interpretation that treats collapse as real is the Copenhagen interpretation, nowadays it’s mostly Copenhagen-consistent histories interpretation.

I’d be surprised if this Copenhagen-consistent histories interpretation doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page, when most of you guys who have studied QM tend to stick to a collapse interpretation, and Copenhagen is the most common one, and nowadays it is mostly Copenhagen-consistent histories.

I mean even when most of you guys who have studied QM do not stick to non-collapse interpretations, Consistent-histories, which according to both you and me is a non-collapse interpretation, has a Wikipedia page.

So where’s the link to this modified Copenhagen interpretation?

2. Now obviously, this Copenhagen-consistent histories interpretation, which is a mix of both Copenhagen and consistent-histories, must have have real wave-function collapse. That’s why you are calling it a collapse interpretation. That’s also why you are saying that consistent histories is not a collapse wave-function, because having the appearance of a collapse isn’t the same as having a collapse. Please answer the second question.

3. Now there’s no way that this Copenhagen-consistent histories interpretation does not have a real wave-function collapse. Consistent-histories, since it is using decoherence, just like MWI and its variants, have the appearance of a collapse. But you called it a non-collapse interpretation. So having the appearance of a collapse is not enough to be called a collapse interpretation. You need to have a real wave-function collapse. But in case if CCH doesn’t have a real collapse, answer the 3rd question. Just why are you saying CCH is a collapse interpretation and Consistent-histories a non-collapse one?

This is what i said

The most common interpretation that treats collapse as real is the Copenhagen interpretation, nowadays it’s mostly Copenhagen-consistent histories interpretation.

the modern copenhagen interpretation borrows a bunch of stuff from the consistent histories interpretation it’s a bit of mix of both. that’s why i wrote Cophenhagen-consistent histories interpretation.

To the point,

No modern interpretation “collapses” a wavefunction and dissolves the classical quantum boundary arbitrarily. That process is handled by decoherence and is a fairly well defined process. How the notion of measurement effects system is another question all together.

1. If what is described in the wiki (the one Gell-Mann advocated) is not what you mean by Consistent-histories interpretation, please provide a link to someplace where it is properly described.

2. Does that interpretation include the collapse of the wave-function. (since whatever you think you are talking about is using decoherence, I suppose not)

3. If whatever the interpretation you think you are talking about does not include the collapse of the wave-function, on what basis are you calling it a collapse interpretation?

The collapse wiki is talking about and collapse i’m talking about are very different. I’ve said pretty clearly decoherence resolves the measurement paradox, or at least side steps it. If you knew what the fuck you are talking about you’d have some sense not to mix the two meanings of collapse.

And neo-copenhagenist view of Consistent Histories sounds like crock to me. You’ll need to explain to us plebs what that means.

I’ve never in my life heard of this mind causes shit to collapse, when talking about the Copenhagen interpretation.

Moron. Where have I ever said that Copenhagen interpretation is a consciousness-causes-collapse interpretation. What I said was many collapse interpretations are consciousness-causes collapse interpretations. Back in the dark ages of Quantum Mechanics, even the most brilliant of men, John von Neumann thought mind causes shit to collapse. Read his book “he Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”.

In contrast to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation, the framework does not include “wavefunction collapse” as a relevant description of any physical process, and emphasizes that measurement theory is not a fundamental ingredient of quantum mechanics.

So basically, you were saying that consistent-histories was a collapse interpretation when it thinks wavefunction collapse is not relevant for anything. Moron.

And consistent-histories isn’t the only interpretation that uses decoherence. If you’d taken time to actually read the literature, you’d see that MWI heavily uses dechorence. I have a neo-Copenhagenist view of consistent histories. Consistent histories is basically just Many Worlds from a different point of view. Both have no wavefunction collapse. In MWI you use wave equation and in consistent histories you use path integrals . These are equivalent formalisms.

Even if you are don’t have a neo-Copenhagenist attitude towards consistent-histories and think that its ensemble of worlds actually exist, still you cannot classify consistent-histories as a collapse interpretation.

It takes a moron to say consistent-histories is collapse interpretation.

The most common interpretation that treats collapse as real is the Copenhagen interpretation, nowadays it’s mostly Copenhagen-consistent histories interpretation. I’ve never in my life heard of this mind causes shit to collapse, when talking about the Copenhagen interpretation. And all this measurement & observer talk is also ancient history. If you want to sound fancy talking about QM these day use this word a lot : decoherence

Decoherence has kind of settled the measurement paradox, or as i was taught, successfully sidestepped it.

That’s what gets taught these days in universities. And personally I’m agnostic when it comes to all these interpretations. And I admit I also don’t understand some of them too well.

Should be

2. They fail to see that the mind itself is made up of particles and therefore adding an observer means a change in configuration space

The vast majority of collapse interpretations are consciousness causes-collapse-interpretations.

1. They assume that consciousness is a fundamental thing in reality, when all the knowledge accumulated through other fields of science reject that idea.
2. They fail to see that the mind itself is made up of particles and therefore adding an observer.
3. Try writing a computer program according to a collapse interpretation. “Observation” and “Observer” and “Measurement” are not clearly defined. Those who came up with collapse interpretations thought that since they can think of an observer, and the idea of observer feels simple to them, reality itself work that way. It’s very much like saying that Thor causes thunder. Thor seems simple to a human mind. But try coding Thor and you’ll never come to the part of him causing thunder. Collapse interpretations are even worse. It doesn’t even have a clear idea as to what constitues an observer. So they’d moronically wait for the computer to figure it out, thinking that observers are obvious to computers just like to humans.
4. Collapse interpretations think that probabilites are out there in reality. This is the worst kind of mind projection fallacy there can be.

Those are some objections to collapse interpretations. I’m not surprised that you are one of those who believe them. Science isn’t a democracy. What’s stupid is just stupid. But in any case, many world interpretation and its variants are getting popular lately.

The judges and JSC was trying to go against the executive and the Medamulana chandiya have send the clear but minor message in taking away the sunglasses and a cheap mobile phone after punching few blows to the sec.

the next will be what came for Lasantha W., watchout folks ..

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223.html

That’s pretty crazy.

One more point, many people who embrace science and reject superstitions actually don’t have good reasons to do so. They don’t actually learn science. Many of them haven’t read anything Feynman or Robert Trivers ever written. They deny certain claim a priori as superstitious, even though they don’t exactly know why they should be denied a priori. Their answers would be something along the lines of “its against science, or common sense”. Ask them is it possible that God created the universe, they’d say no, or that the probability of that being true is epsilon where epsilon is like one upon googolplex. Ask they whether it’s possible that the universe is a computer simulation created by a super-intelligent alien and they’d assign a higher probability. But ask them why they assign a higher probability to the latter, they won’t be able to give a good philosophical answer, other than that the god hypothesis is crazy.

This is not a defense of superstition. I’d be the last person to do that. What I want to say is even though person may not be superstitious, he/she may still be running the same kind of cognitive algorithms inside their brains that causes other people to have superstitious beliefs. You might read Richard Dawkins and say goodbye to god and astrology. But there’s still a long way to go until you realize that Austrian economics is bullshit, or that collapse-interpretations of Quantum Mechanics doesn’t make sense, or that Desmond Morris’s evolutionary explanation for love is teleological nonsense.

1. I’m one of the people who blame it on the president just for fun.
2. Majority of the rest of the people who blame it on the president will vote for him come next election. They don’t think he’s cursed.

I dont like him either. But sometimes I have to admire his deviousness. Also, he seems to reserve the devil’ s own luck for himself.