Reductionism 101

Think Like Reality

113
by Eliezer Yudkowsky 2nd May 2007

Rationality Frontpage

Whenever I hear someone describe quantum physics as "weird" -

whenever I hear someone bewailing the mysterious effects of
observation on the observed, or the bizarre existence of nonlocal
correlations, or the incredible impossibility of knowing position
and momentum at the same time - then I think to myself: This
person will never understand physics no matter how many books
they read.

Reality has been around since long before you showed up. Don't
go calling it nasty names like "bizarre" or "incredible". The
universe was propagating complex amplitudes through
configuration space for ten billion years before life ever emerged
on Earth. Quantum physics is not "weird". You are weird. You
have the absolutely bizarre idea that reality ought to consist of
little billiard balls bopping around, when in fact reality is a
perfectly normal cloud of complex amplitude in configuration
space. This is your problem, not reality's, and you are the one who
needs to change.
Human intuitions were produced by evolution and evolution is a
hack. The same optimization process that built your retina
backward and then routed the optic cable through your field of
vision, also designed your visual system to process persistent
objects bouncing around in 3 spatial dimensions because that's
what it took to chase down tigers. But "tigers" are leaky surface
generalizations - tigers came into existence gradually over
evolutionary time, and they are not all absolutely similar to each
other. When you go down to the fundamental level, the level on
which the laws are stable, global, and exception-free°, there aren't
any tigers. In fact there aren't any persistent objects bouncing
around in 3 spatial dimensions. Deal with it.

Calling reality "weird" keeps you inside a viewpoint already proven

erroneous. Probability theory tells us that surprise is the measure
of a poor hypothesis; if a model is consistently stupid -
consistently hits on events the model assigns tiny probabilities -
then it's time to discard that model. A good model makes reality
look normal, not weird; a good model assigns high probability to
that which is actually the case. Intuition is only a model by
another name: poor intuitions are shocked by reality, good
intuitions make reality feel natural. You want to reshape your
intuitions so that the universe looks normal. You want to think
like reality.

This end state cannot be forced. It is pointless to pretend that

quantum physics feels natural to you when in fact it feels strange.
This is merely denying your confusion, not becoming less
confused. But it will also hinder you to keep thinking How
bizarre! Spending emotional energy on incredulity wastes time
you could be using to update. It repeatedly throws you back into
the frame of the old, wrong viewpoint. It feeds your sense of
righteous indignation at reality daring to contradict you.

The principle extends beyond physics. Have you ever caught

yourself saying something like, "I just don't understand how a PhD
physicist can believe in astrology?" Well, if you literally don't
understand, this indicates a problem with your model of human
psychology. Perhaps you are indignant - you wish to express
strong moral disapproval. But if you literally don't understand,
then your indignation is stopping you from coming to terms with
reality. It shouldn't be hard to imagine how a PhD physicist ends
up believing in astrology. People compartmentalize°, enough said.

I now try to avoid using the English idiom "I just don't understand
how..." to express indignation. If I genuinely don't understand how,
then my model is being surprised by the facts, and I should discard
it and find a better model.

Surprise exists in the map, not in the territory. There are no

surprising facts, only models that are surprised by facts. Likewise
for facts called such nasty names as "bizarre", "incredible",
"unbelievable", "unexpected", "strange", "anomalous", or "weird".
When you find yourself tempted by such labels, it may be wise to
check if the alleged fact is really factual. But if the fact checks out,
then the problem isn't the fact, it's you.

Rationality 2 Frontpage
 Previous:

Qualitatively Confused
83 comments 59 karma

Next:

Chaotic Inversion
68 comments 97 karma

Log in to save where you left off

Mentioned in
298 Book Review: How Minds Change
174 Gears in understanding
138 The Gift We Give To Tomorrow
134 Message Length
119 The Territory
Load More (5/22)

71 comments, sorted by oldest

Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)
Change truncation settings

[ -] Mitchell_Porter 17y -4 0
Specifically with respect to quantum theory, this advice is bad (see here, here,
and subsequent comments). It is one thing to be open to unusual ideas, or to
accept unexpected facts. But the prevailing interpretation of quantum theory
has thrown out an ontological principle - that to be is to be something, that
some properties by their very nature must take determinate values or not
exist at all - so basic that it hardly even has a name, and which is nonetheless
basic to objective thought. Accepting quantum theory, for most people, is
going to mean not jus... (read more)

-1 pnrjulius 12y That's certainly true if the metaphysics you're accepti…

[ -] Stuart_Armstrong 17y 11 0
that some properties by their very nature must take determinate values or not
exist at all

This is not a scientific principle. Science lives or dies only on the accuracy of its
predictions - probabilistic or deterministic. Don't be confused by the fact that
pre-quantum, pre-thermodynamics laws were deterministic - that was just a
lucky fact, that persuaded people that all laws had to be the same.

As for the "some properties", quantum mechanics asserts (and experiments

back it up) that there is no such thing as position, or momentum - that the
combination of the two is the actual property that exists.

As for the different interpretations of quantum mechanics - they're all

equivalent, or they differ in ways we can't measure yet. So none of them on
their own say anything about how we should view reality. Only the predictions
of quantum mechanics tell us about reality, not the models.

[ -] Stuart_Armstrong 17y 16 0
Actually, I don't think I agree with the thrust of this post. As long as you don't
argue "this is weird, hence it is wrong", I think the if you find quantum
mechanics strange you're more likely to prosper in the field that if you force
your sense of normality to match quantum reality.

In the first case, you can easily discover a new physical law, find it weird, and
cheerfully accept it. In the second case, a new law may be an assault on your
feeling of reality, so you may be less willing to accept it - and if you did, you'd
have to go through the whole process of updating your instincts again.

People can develop very good intuition about things they find strange,
without having to find them any less strange.

[ -] Barkley_Rosser 17y 4 0
Eliezer,

What is ironic about this posting is your indignation. Offhand it sounds like you
are as guilty as those you criticize.

There is nothing weird about people finding a theory to be weird that does
not correspond with their everyday surface perceptions, even when they are
able to comprehend it intellectually. Also, and others have noted this more or
less, there are a lot of different interpretations out there of what quantum
physics "really means," and some are a lot weirder than others. Is it
ontological that Schrodinger's Cat does not ei... (read more)

[ -] James_Somers 17y 1 0
Wow, great post. Seriously.

[ -] Buzzcut 17y 1 0
In actuality, the biggest barrier to understanding modern physics is the math.
The math models are what generate the "weirdness". Trying to use english to
describe what the math models are telling us is what generates the
"weirdness".

But if you suspend disbelief and go where the math takes you, useful things
can be done, like nuclear power, solid state physics, etc.
[ -] Thermopyle 17y 13 0
This is one of the worst posts I've read here.

If you truly think "This person will never understand physics no matter how
many books they read." then you are making great assumptions based on
your personal prejudices.

If you don't find quantum physics weird (or at least understand why someone
may), you don't have a grasp on current human intuition. Just because you
recognize that quantum physics differs from everyday experience doesn't
mean you can't understand quantum physics. It actually means you have a
BETTER grasp on understanding human intuition, and has no bearing on
whether you know (or have the capability of knowing) less or more about
quantum physics.

[ -] Barkley_Rosser 17y 0 0
Another way of looking at this is to realize that we are all pretty much hard
wired to operate in a surface reality that more or less fits a Newtonian-
Euclidean model of the world. We now know that this does not hold at high
accelerations or at very large or very small scales in a lot of ways. So, these
deviations, many of which have been clearly established beyong any doubt,
seem weird to most people when they first hear of them, and may even still
"feel weird" even after they have long come to intellectually comprehend and
accept them.

Heck, e... (read more)

[ -] Robin_Hanson2 17y 10 0
"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Neils
Bohr. It is not just that one has to greatly revised one's view of what there is in
the world; physicists still don't understand very well what quantum theory
implies about what in fact there is in a quantum world.
 2 Nathan Gillingham 2y Exactly the quote and reference I was going t…

[ -] Alan_Gunn 17y 0 0
Are there data on how many physicists believe in astrology? I can understand
how a few would, but I'd be astonished if the percentage weren't a lot lower
than for Americans as a whole. Hey, there are PhD biologists who reject
evolution--but not many.

[ -] Shakespeare's_Fool 17y 4 0
If Richard Feynman can say:

What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the
third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to
turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't
understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does.

then it may be strange to the point of being beyond understanding.

(Nobel Lecture, 1966, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)

[ -] Kip_Werking 17y 2 0
This is a great post. I just want to add: we might fail to understand physics and
mass murderers for different reasons. When a terrorist slams a jet into a
skyscraper, someone can say "I don't understand why that person did that? It's
bizarre." But they seem to fail in understand because victims have a biased
recall of transgressions (according to the work by Baumeister on the myth of
pure evil). Perpetrators seem to actually have more accurate and complete
understandings of transgressions. This is one of my favorite findings from
social science.

In contrast, we seem to think physics is bizarre for different reasons.

[ -] Eliezer Yudkowsky 17y 29 0
Well, the main lesson I learned today is:

Never use quantum mechanics as an example of anything.

I could have talked about relativity, the counterintuitive mixing of space and
time, and non-flat spacetime metrics, but noooo, I had to say "quantum".

-1 brilee 12y I haven't learned any general relativity yet, but from wha…
1 pnrjulius 12y Relativity of simultaneity makes perfect sense to you…

3 A1987dM 12y You also need to know that there's something that t…
5 A1987dM 12y But if you hadn't used that example I would have nev…

[ -] HalFinney 17y 0 0
One thing that happens with new theories is that at first they seem strange,
but then gradually the concepts filter into the popular consciousness and then
they are easier to accept. It's commonplace to say, "everything is relative", or
"the observer affects what he observes". Also, better ways are found to
instruct students in the principles, which also helps with acceptance. QM and
relativity do not seem all that odd to me, because I have known about them
for so long.

One theory that still baffles me is the holographic principle, which... (read more)

2 pnrjulius 12y Don't jump the gun; we have no experimental confirm…

[ -] Eliezer Yudkowsky 17y 17 0

Shakespeare, Feynman wrote that in 1966, which was before Everett's
absolutely essentialy (and stunningly obvious in retrospect) insight spread
through the physics community. Feynman's claim in 1966 that "Nobody
understands QM" thus inadvertantly illustrates one of the other great truths,
which is that nobody knows what nobody knows. The accumulated pool of
scientific knowledge is far too vast for any one human mind to hold more than
a tiny fraction. There are six billion people in the world, and you don't know
what they know. Feynman should have stuck to saying "I don't understand
QM", to which he could have attested of his own knowledge.

Quantum mechanics really was a very poor choice as my first example,

because the application of "Think like reality" to QM is nontrivial. Before you
conform your intuitions to reality, you should be very sure of what reality is.

Quantum mechanics tells us unambiguously that reality is over points in

configuration space and that quarks and photons have no individual identities
- if you pretend that a point in configuration space with photon 1 at A and
photon 2 at B is different from a point in configuration space w... (read more)

-1 pnrjulius 12y "Which branch am I in?" is clearly not a nonsensical q…

0 snewmark 8y I don't think he was actually trying to say nobody und…

[ -] simon2 17y 2 0
Questions like "How are amplitudes converted to subjective probabilities?" are
not automatically dictated by the theory

You might find this paper by David Deutsch interesting. Although, equation 14
bugs me, it seems to me |Psi_2> as defined doesn't necessarily exist.

[ -] Mitchell_Porter 17y 0 0
Stuart, I said determinate, not determinist. I was objecting to the notion of an
objectively indeterminate property - as if it made sense to say of a particle
that it has a position, but no particular position... You yourself say "there is no
such thing as position, or momentum... the combination of the two is the
actual property that exists." I would be very surprised if that is anything more
than a slogan. Can you explain to me the exact nature of this 'combination'
that is the actual property? (Please don't just say that the formalism
provides... (read more)
 1 pnrjulius 12y Presumably the actual property is the state of the wav…

[ -] Stuart_Armstrong 17y 0 0
as if it made sense to say of a particle that it has a position, but no particular
position

That might or might not make sense (mathematicians have been tearing their
hair out about non-computable numbers, see Chaitin's constant). But most
quantum mechanists do not say that a particle has a position. In fact if you
interpret Quantum mechanics in terms of "hidden variables" (there are
underlying values for the objects, like spin and momentum, but we can't get at
them) then you will generally come unstuck.

Can you explain to me the exact nature of th... (read more)

[ -] Eliezer Yudkowsky 17y 4 0

And so, like kudzu, the thread is taken over by the Great Quantum Debate...
but Mitch, do you agree with the central point of the original post, that true
facts cannot be "weird" or "bizarre" except insofar as we think like primates
and not like reality? That we are always faced with a dilemma to eventually
discard either the mistaken intuition or the mistaken fact?

As to your quantum-question: as I understand it, the presences of particle

species at particular locations are the dimensions of the configuration space,
points within which... (read more)

[ -] Stuart_Armstrong 17y 0 0
Eliezer, If a theory seems bizarre to your intuitions, then either the theory is
wrong or your intuitions need reshaping.

I'm leaning towards embracing your point more, but still two issues: 1)
"need". If my intuition tell me something, but I know it's wrong, and I can deal
with it without letting my intuition interfere, why do I need to reshape my
intuition - shouldn't I just go with "don't trust my intuition"? 2) As a
mathematician, I have good mathematical intuition. It helped me when I took
a course on quantum mechanics and relativit... (read more)

[ -] Matthew_C 17y 2 0
So does MWI actually bring anything to the table in terms of testable
predictions that differ from Copenhagen et. al.?

1 pnrjulius 12y Yes, in that it doesn't postulate this weird non-unitary …

[ -] Matthew_C 17y 0 0
There is an interesting critique of MWI here that I just finished reading. An
fascinating topic to be sure. . .

[ -] simon2 17y 0 0
Matthew C: My criticisms of Kent's criticisms of MWI (as formulated by
Everett), in the paper you link to:

A Hilbert space has an inner product by definition, so mu is already an entity

of the theory without needing any extra postulates.

In the example given, decoherence will result in the two terms of the RHS of
(2) not being able to interfere with one another, which justifies considering
them to be independent worlds, no intuition required.

Kent's talk about bases seems confused, the dimensionality of a basis is fixed
by the dimensionality of the state spac... (read more)

[ -] Fez 17y 11 0
I think it's unfortunate that this thread has veered off into debates about the
inner workings of quantum theory and indignant defenses of what is and is
not known in physics. Eliezer used quantum mechanics as an example to
illustrate a larger point which has scarcely been mentioned here, a point
which connects very clearly to the name of this blog -- Overcoming Bias, and
yet everyone seems more interested in the metaphor than what it represents;
they are mistaking the map for the terrain, as Eliezer might say =)

As I understand it, Eliezer is making a point about how short-sighted and self-
centered it is to label a phenomena "weird". To call something weird is, in
essence, identifying it as an outlier in our (woefully limited) data set of
experiences. As Eliezer points out, this is a shortcoming of our model and not
an inherent “eccentricity” in reality. Now I believe that being surprised is
completely natural and in fact unavoidable, but what I believe Eliezer is really
railing against is how fixated people can become with the “weirdness” of a
universe which refuses to conform to our simple models and heuristics.

In cognitive psychology, there is a theory of cognitive gro... (read more)

[ -] Doug_S.2 17y 2 0
Does anyone have a book they can recommend that explains the actual math
of quantum mechanics? Once I actually see the equations, things always start
making sense to me. For example, my introductory modern physics course
talked about the Schroedinger equation and had an optional section on
operators and wave functions. Having suffered through Fourier analysis in my
electrical engineering courses, the way the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
comes from the application of transformations to wave functions made a kind
of intuitive sense. I know an awful lot o... (read more)

1 waveman 13y You could try "The structure and interpretation of qu…

[ -] Andrew2 17y 1 0
You write: "There are no surprising facts, only models that are surprised by
facts."
That's deterministic thinking. Surprising facts happen every once in awhile.
Rarely, but occasionally.

But I agree with your general point. Surprise is an indication that you have a
problem with your model, or that you have prior information that you have
not included in your model.

[ -] Mitchell_Porter 17y 2 0
but Mitch, do you agree with the central point of the original post, that true
facts cannot be "weird" or "bizarre" except insofar as we think like primates
and not like reality? That we are always faced with a dilemma to eventually
discard either the mistaken intuition or the mistaken fact?

The reality is that possibilities are very large in number and actual knowledge
is shockingly small. To genuinely "think like reality" might mean to maintain as
constant and thorough an awareness as possible of every uncertainty in your
exi... (read more)

[ -] Mitchell_Porter 17y 6 0
A few more words on quantum theory. In effect, there is a prevailing myth and
a rising heresy. The prevailing myth is the Copenhagen interpretation, the
rising heresy is the many-worlds interpretation. They have this much in
common, that both are full of fuzzy thinking but their acolytes believe them to
be exact. Therefore, when you press the acolytes for details, you never get
quite the same answers, because the belief that the interpretation does
provide answers comes first, and then the details are invented in response to
scrutiny, in faith that they ar... (read more)

0 pnrjulius 12y My feeling is that Bohm escapes these problems, at th…

1 Dacyn 7mo Can't this be answered by an appeal to the fact that the …

1 [comment deleted] 7mo

[ -] Matthew_C 17y 0 0
Mitchell,

Have you heard of the Pondicherry interpretation of QM?

[ -] Mitchell_Porter 17y 2 0
I had, but I had the wrong idea about it. At a glance, Mohrhoff's ontology
appears to be as follows. There is a fundamental reality which is standard-
issue Formless Infinite Oneness, and then there is a multiplicity of elementary
physical facts ('observables' taking definite values) out of which everything
physical is made. Every single one of those facts is utterly uncaused, both with
respect to location in space and time, and the specific value taken. But
quantum mechanics gives us the probabilities.

I do not, so far, see anything illuminating in what he ... (read more)

[ -] Mitchell_Porter 17y 3 0
My point about probabilities may not be clear. If individual events are
genuinely uncaused, then there is equally no explanation for the distribution
they exhibit collectively. Statistical reasoning in domains outside of
fundamental physics can be justified by distributional hypotheses, e.g. that
events are normally distributed, and that hypothesis may have a causal
explanation arising in another domain. But when you get to fundamental
physics there's no more scope for passing the buck. Justifications for
fundamental probabilistic laws can be imagined: for... (read more)

0 pnrjulius 12y Indeed, a well-defined probability distribution cries ou…

2 othercriteria 12y How could it not? The Kolmogorov axioms are n…

[ -] Matthew_C 17y 0 0
Mitchell,

What I find particularly interesting reading his papers is his emphasis that
space and time are features of the macroscopic world, and don't go "all the
way down".

They seem absolute and real to us because of our evolutionary psychology

and especially the "space and time" orientation of the visual maps in our
brains. He contrasts his view with interpretations which postulate an infinitely
sliced spatial manifold which is fundamentally real, but cannot be measured at
the finest scales. I'm assuming by that he is referring to MW... (read more)

[ -] Douglas_Knight2 17y 0 0
interpretations which postulate an infinitely sliced spatial manifold which is
fundamentally real

Strictly speaking, I suppose that is part of the interpretation, but it's a pretty
mild part of the interpretation of QM, or at least QFT. Many people expect
that this to stop being true in a unification with GR, but that's about physical
law, not interpretation.

[ -] Christopher 17y -3 0
Wow...intellectual elitism turned sour and venomous. Your indignation is
palpable and, frankly, quite off-putting. I'm not sure what the point of this
post is....we should watch our syntax when we express awe?

[ -] MichaelAnissimov 17y 0 0
Christopher,

Who else has the guts to talk to the audience like this? And hasn't your ratio
of surprises gone down as you've learned more about the world?
The flagrant breaking of rule #12 in this post is one of the things that really
makes it priceless. The other is just that it makes a valid point.

[ -] Hopefully_Anonymous2 17y 0 0
I agree with James Somers. Best post on this blog I've read so far. Best short
writing that I've read in a while anywhere, Eliezer.

[ -] Ernie_Bornheimer 16y 3 0
I see the point of the post, but it's too harsh. Naive physics (like folk
etymology) is important, a facet of the human mind worth studying and
paying attention to. It should be overcome, but it can't be replaced by some
higher form of intuition. No one can force themselves (him/herself?) to intuit
quantum physics. Naive physics can and should be superseded by real physics,
but our original intuitions remain intact. The two forms of understanding can
live side by side, each with its proper function. Reminded me of a recent piece
by Chomsky. Excerpt:

De
... (read more)

[ -] Ernie_Bornheimer 16y 0 0
I see the point of the post, but it's too harsh. Naive physics (like folk
etymology) is important, a feature of the human mind deserving of study. It is
indeed the case that some beliefs arising from intuition should be overcome,
but they can't be replaced by some higher form of intuition (no one can force
himself to intuit quantum physics). Naive physics can and should be
superseded by real physics, but our original intuitions remain intact. The two
forms of understanding can live side by side, each with its proper function.
See this recent piece by Chomsky, about (among other things) how we've
been forced to believe in apparent "absurdities" since Newton.
[ -] Joseph_Knecht 16y 3 0
This post makes a valuable point, but the point is weakened by too much
hyperbole -- or rather by hyberbole that seems like a plausible non-hyperbolic
statement that the writer might actually believe.

Whenever I hear someone describe quantum physics as "weird" - whenever I

hear someone bewailing the mysterious effects of observation on the
observed, or the bizarre existence of nonlocal correlations, or the incredible
impossibility of knowing position and momentum at the same time - then I
think to myself: This person will never understand physics... (read more)

[ -] mako 16y 5 0
Don't confuse scientific models with truth or reality.

Quantum mechanics, relativity, Newtonian and Aristotilian dynamics are all

models that, in certain situations, do a good job of predicting reality. Light is
not a probabilistic model any more than it is a particle or a wave. It is light and
every way we currently have of understanding is an inperfect model -- even if
we don't understand just how it's imperfect yet. If the history of science has
taught us anything, it's that.

[ +] This_Instead 15y -14 0

[ -] AndyCossyleon 14y 6 0
I think the real issue here is not that it is unacceptable to perceive real
phenomena as weird or bizarre, but that it is unacceptable to think that
something real ought not be so (based on some model of reality) and continue
without updating the model or understanding why the weirdness or
bizarreness leaks in.
To pick on C.S. Lewis and the religious in particular, Lewis conflates many
times the Laws of Nature with the 'Laws' of Morality. Laws of nature cannot be
broken; those of morality most definitely can be and are. And perhaps as
another facet of the n... (read more)

[ -] UnclGhost 13y 2 0
Sometimes people use words like "bizarre", "incredible", "unbelievable",
"unexpected", "strange", "anomalous", or "weird" to mean "counterintuitive".
Is that really all that different from noticing that you're confused but not yet
deciding whether your model is at fault or your perception of the new
information is? When you hear about something that seems like it's at odds
with everything you've ever observed, saying that it's "unexpected" at the
very least is truthful, isn't it? Whether or not you intend to investigate further
and integrate it (or not) into your map is another matter.

[ -] timtyler 13y 0 0
Surprising facts seems like too useful a term to have it be defined out of
existence.

In practice, the term seems to refer to facts that many people find to be
surprising.

2 MixedNuts 13y When the world turns out to be counter-intuitive yo…

4 Paul Crowley 12y No, it makes sense to be surprised by the world …

[ -] Serious_Shenanigans 11y 4 0
“That’s weird” is a colloquialism for “I notice that I am confused.” Saying so is
an important intermediate step towards understanding... or so I’ve heard.
Once you understand, then weirdness is a non-issue -- you are no longer
confused.
[ -] christopherj 11y 0 0
Yes, quantum mechanics is weird. It violates my intuitions, and the intuitions
of (nearly?) every human. No, we can't rewrite our intuitions, and knowing
quantum mechanics is weird is important because if it wasn't weird we might
think we didn't have to shut up and integrate. I won't simply accept that
reality is weird just because a scientific theory like quantum mechanics implies
it is. Especially since there is such a good chance of quantum mechanics being
wrong -- since it clashes with General Relativity. I can't say that the successor
to quantum-GR wi... (read more)

[ -] cousin_it 9y 0 0
It's interesting how we use the word "model" to mean two different, perhaps
even opposite things. In this post we have "models" describing "reality", and
in logic we have "theories" describing "models".

For some reason it felt like a big insight to me to realize that computers aren't
identical to any particular piece of math, but rather are a model of that math,
which can also be studied with other math. Any given piece of computer-
related math might ignore some properties of computers that another
formalism would bring to the forefront.

0 [anonymous] 9y A weak theory could have both reality and mathe…

[ -] Berd 8y 0 0
Well, speaking your own language, the reality is supposedly not "weird", but
nothing prevents a good map of reality to be still weird. There were a lot of
moments in development of science when the current, working picture looked
weird, until a deeper understanding came. Take, say the expression of
quantum basics given by people who failed to "shut up"
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q5/quantum_nonrealism/° or just how it was at
sufficiently young state. It was the physics of that time (not a reality) and as
we agree now it is weird.
So what do... (read more)

[ -] stripey7 3y 1 0
"What many people refer to as common sense is nothing more than a
collection of prejudices accumulated before the age of eighteen." -- Einstein
(first quote I ever memorized, at age nine)

[ -] Ben 1y 3 0
Actual physical reality is "out there" somewhere, and quantum mechanics is a
map we use to find our way around parts of it. Often in physics two maps can
be identical in their predictions, but differ substantially in the presentation.
Hilbert-space quantum mechanics gives us a presentation of complex
amplitudes in configuration space. Phase space quantum mechanics is
mathematically equivalent, but the presentation is in terms of (possibly
negative) probability fields in "real" x,y,z,px,py,pz,t phase space.

Quantum mechanics does indeed model some real measu... (read more)

[ -] dkirmani 17d 2 0

Surprise exists in the map, not in the territory.

Surprise exists in the territory because the territory contains the map.

Moderation Log