I actually feel like there are six or so subplots running around, here, including a defense of what the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy↱ describes as a "metaphysical interpretation of quantum mechanics":
Rich subplots indeed. And you've even quoted my favorite philosophy reference. Excellent idea. I'll have to go re-read the whole section.
And inasmuch as anyone wishes to fight about the details of the "Copenhagen interpretation itself", any assertion of quantum physics as a means to willful divine creationism in which "God was bound"° by anything also requires subordination akin to polytheism
Indeed so. If the G-d of position knows the exact position of a particle, can the G-d of momentum be certain of its momentum? How can a single G-d possibly know both measures at the same time? Omniscience is a bad answer, unless there is also a G-d of uncertainty, or omniuncertainty. Somehow, the point of using something like this to replace the certainty that if an omnipotent G-d could create a stone so massive that even an omnipotent G-d himself could not move it, then one G-d or the other would fail an impossible task. More subtle points like these seem lost on quantum creationists.
If a description of a quantum physics situation does not appear in the book of Genesis, it isn't really a problem, you see? Lots of things aren't there, so those must be the uncertainties, right?
the paid hands would be elsewhere, and have little to do with the day to day community.
I start having axes to grind with moderators that cut off productive discussions of anything. Arfa brane left the "observers" thread believing that interaction of entangled photons with the environment caused quantum disentanglement. This simply isn't true. The beam splitter is part of the environment. So is a fiber optic cable, if it is part of the setup used in Birgit Dopfer's entangled double slit experiment. It isn't pseudoscience to propose that the only "observer" is the focusing lens, which is exactly what the experiment demonstrated beyond any doubt. It DID NOT require divine intervention as the observer to instantly disentangle the longer optical path when the shorter one was brought into focus.
Well, at least I never suggested that G-d him/herself was quantum entanglement. Perhaps I should have.
The discussion was something of an eye opener for me in terms of how many poorly crafted interpretations of quantum mechanical phenomena are floating out there in a community that should really know better. I blame the quantum creationists for some of it. They use every scrap of science they can to try and piece together their cargo cult respectability facades. Wooden cargo crates with radioactive warning labels "Danger: Schroedinger's Cat -- Do not observe!"
I know perfectly well how to read and interpret scientific experimental results. Some people don't or simply don't bother to. Yet they are allowed to moderate here. As far as I am aware, the only other "sciencey" thing this individual has done was to farm out some time on their computer for discovering exoplanets. I only know of about five other amateur astronomers who have done exactly the same thing. It doesn't make you either a scientist or a co-discoverer of exoplanets; that's just a sales pitch to get you to chip in some petaflops. Tell me I misunderstood your role in this, if I got that part wrong. Did you write any code? Did you interface it to a telescope?
Thanks for owning, James. Get a clue and do what you're good at. Hire someone else to moderate who knows enough science not to impede its progress. Open another nice forum like this one and stay out of the discussions on the science threads.
Or just pretend that I didn't just offer you some good advice, like I already know you will.
Nice illustation, Tiassa.