>>17081050
That isnt quantum mechanics (the new physics)
Its masturabatory nonsense

File: 1791071542986008.jpg (58 KB, 750x1000)

58 KB JPG

I like that idea. So-called "many worlds" is an overinterpretation, philosophically speaking. Why should a wavefunction result in "many worlds"? Because it vaguely looks like that from the mathematics of a microscopic experiment? We don't really know how a wavefunction "is" (or could be) the macroscopic world we experience. There is no reason to believe that wavefunction fundamentality means it must be "many worlds".

oh it's real alright
real gay

I sympathize with wanting to celebrate that AI companies have claimed their models have bolstered our confidence in the long-held belief that QCD is a good model of the strong interaction. Yay for that.

On the other hand I don’t want to support any notion of an “Ontic Wavefunction”, whatever that means. What I assume it means is that one posits that quantum wavefunctions, or quantum state vectors in Hilbert/Fock space are regarded as “real”. They are not. This is the same kind of mental gymnastics you see in AdS/CFT charlatans where they say “our universe is a hologram” but in their case they claim our universe is some avatar representation of a conformal field theory on some non-existent “boundary”.

The wave function is a theoretical construction that exists “on paper” or as an abstract model that merely is the best human-level *description* of reality. But it does not exist in any sense of physical existence. What exists is the universe, for example the things you can touch.

LARPing about how some theoretical description is actually more real than real life, like real life is a hologram but somehow you and your in-group know the actual real shit, is cult-like behavior.

And it’s not just you, there are young up-and-comer people who have jobs at Harvard and Princeton doing this very same charade. Even those people can be gullible sheep, or nefarious snake-oil-salesmen, or occasionally (but rarely) legit schizos, too

>>17081050
Is there any proof anything quantum is real?

>>17082031
yes

>>17082178
no

>>17081050
Yes, and your generation is the one that will normalize it, and put it in science books.