Write4U
Valued Senior Member
In the same breath I am accused of appeal to authority and then that authority is used to qualify my quotes. That is supposed to prove my "prejuduce"? I post both pro and con and try to provide current science. But "damned if I do" and "damned if I don't". Nice......On the contrary I agree entirely with Dave Morgan "PhD", whoever he is, so I have no need to go and tell him anything. (By the way, just drop the wanky appeals to authority, can't you?)
Morgan makes perfectly clear in the quote you provide: "... none of the interpretations of QM have measurable or testable predictions or consequences, so scientifically speaking, they are all equally plausible. Evaluating interpretations of QM comes down to making judgements about their metaphysical/epistemological/ontological content..." that these issue are philosophical ones, not scientific ones.
Eureka!!!As for "Shut up and calculate", that is absolutely the most strictly scientific approach, given that all theories in science are predictive models of physical reality, that cannot be assumed to represent it accurately or completely. And yes that is "as deep as it gets", from the point of view of science. Just as the Big Bang theory does not provide an answer to why the Big Bang happened. In science, your theories can only go as far as the observations can justify them - or maybe you can speculate a little bit farther, but not much. There always comes a point in science at which you have to say, "Well that is just how nature seems to behave and we don't know why."
I am expected to respond to a challenge when someone brings up QM, no? I have not claimed any expertise. Does anyone here have expertise in QM? Why are they bringing up the subject and feel authoritative enought to label me with ad hominens?Incidentally, if you "would not presume to speak about QM", why have you just devoted several posts to talking rubbish about it?