Quantum Mechanics - Schools of interpretation

Now there is a serious sign of the real situation.

[i]"1) I barely know anything about QM (yet am willingly to dismiss what James in particular says because… well… I am …emm… smart and all)

  1. You don’t really know any more than I do (because no one knows anything that I don’t already know to be true)

  2. James will likely get involved (probably because I just called him ignorant and not worth listening to despite me knowing nothing of the subject he might be talking about)."

You should look more into QM (despite that I know nothing about it) because… well… because you know… it’s famous and all.

The truth is that I hardly mention QM unless someone else does and then I refer to the difference between the same fictitious BS that FJ and very many people recognize and the REAL QM which is totally about direct experience, aka “real science”. There is a real version of QM and what I call QP (quantum physics) which is all about musing the population with fantasies but poses as real science.

For anyone to say “I barely know anything, but I know that he knows nothing” is just flat out stupid.

James it’s not what you know it’s what you claim and you opine on every thread about physics with your big claims, you hardly mention my ass. You barely know enough to challenge QM and yet you do so on a regular basis despite everyone telling you you need to know this subject better. I don’t start threads that make claims about QM because I know I am scratching the surface atm in the physics degree I have studied, you do though and with scant regard for the subject. It just annoys everyone really if you shit upon the whole field without ever having learnt enough about the field to do so. It’s lazy and no one should be bothered by your conjecture. Would I let a Dr who had never passed his Doctorate treat me no, would I let a Dr who hadn’t even passed his medical degree treat me?

Now I can keep saying this in many ways, but will you study the subject to a post degree level, earn your stripes, learn hence the maths the models and the reasoning and actually do something that anyone will care about? Probably not, but don’t blame me if people just dismiss you as a crackpot because you don’t have the energy to do the bare minimum to substantiate your claims. Like I say I would love to see you actually make a case based on real knowledge, it would mean you actually cared enough about the subject to matter to it. At some time some physicist molested your ideas because they were weak and you seem to have a chip on you shoulder. Welcome to the club though, I have a few friends who tried to get papers published in their PhDs that were told they should not even bother. End of the day they still published papers, they just didn’t let peer review become some demon or menace that was solely trying to keep all their thoughts down. They went out, they did their research in the right way and then they got published. Science hates every new idea ( in a way), every single one but it is not an arbitrary hate, they just do so to set up standards that will allow you to be able to make a case that cannot be assailed. It’s not perfect science, but at least it’s high walls can be assailed by effort, magical thinking can assail any wall, as can conjecture, just be sure though those walls are magical castles in the sky.

I do not like the idea that non-experts are the only ones qualified to talk about ANY subject. QM has been investigating what many scientists had for granted for way too long: Reality.
And its major success, not matter how much will the current QM theories continue to proliferate, is that it made us wonder again about things we thought we knew. And exactly because of that, non-“experts” are in a much better place to judge the “truth” here.
QM has shown to us that reality is much more weird than we thought it is. And it has actually shown us that WE are the ones who formulate it.

That last phrase is one of those phrases you get from reading the bullshit about QM on the internet. It’s worse than naive to say that non-experts are better judges of the truths in QM than experts. You seem to have gotten pretty far into the quantum mysticism, and I doubt I’m the one that can pull you out. But, if there’s still a little voice in your head making you feel a bit uneasy every time you say things like ‘the human mind formulates reality,’ then this is the voice I’m talking to: throw away what you think you know about QM. You know nothing about QM. Go cold turkey on Quantum Mysticism and really study it.

Quantum Mechanics is about “what is working”, not “why things work”.
Metaphysics is about abstractly “why things work”, not "what is working.
Quantum Physics is the effort of mechanics to speculate metaphysics.

“Quantum weirdness” is what you get when poor metaphysicists, poor philosophers, announce to and promote throughout the public their fascinating, mind-bending speculations. They are so fascinating because if you malign the coherency of an ontology, you end up with mysticism and magic. This is called “dividing the river” so as to create a currency, an interest from which one can gain profit by the struggles of others.

Quantum Physics is only so strange because the words have been misaligned such as to appear to mean something different than what they originally meant and probably still mean to you. QP will never be correct until its ontology is corrected… and by an expert metaphysicist, not a speculative mechanic.

On another thread, the following short video was presented;
Nobody Really Understands Quantum Mechanics

Maudlin, in the video expresses a proper concern for what I just said. In order to understand anything at all, one must get their words properly defined and maintain those definitions. That is a job for philosophers, experts in epistemology and ontology. That isn’t what physicists are trained to do. Asking a physicist to speculate on the "why"s of reality is like asking a Catholic priest to speculate why God created Man. Consider the position of the person you are asking. What have they been trained to do? Priests are not trained to ask why, but to accept. Physicists are no different. Ask too many questions and either church will kick you out.

The famous Uncertainty Principle is expressing that one can never be certain of the exact location of the corner in the circle.

So when someone suggests that “amateurs” should be asked the really hard questions concerning why, it isn’t because amateurs are the best people to ask, but rather because they are the only people left to ask.

Who gets a well paying job as an expert Metaphysicist?

An answer that is not actually an answer. The “go study” does not qualify as an honest answer. The observer problem is the cornerstone of QM, along with supoerposition. If you believe otherwise, please clarify.

PS. And no one said that the non-experts and more qualified than the experts. However remember that we all have a brain and all have logic. And a great scientist once said “he who claims he has understood QM, he has understood nothing”…