Ithaca interpretation
Oct. 23rd, 2006 02:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
109Так и не понял, каким образом Ithaca interpretation решает парадокс ЭПР. Парадокс-то заключается в том, что систему из двух разлетающихся фотонов нельзя представить в виде двух некоррелирующих подсистем, как бы далеко фотоны не разлетелись, что противоречит принчипу локальности. Также не понял, как она (эта интерпретация) транслируется в гипотезу multiverse.
Зато нашел хорошее решение, позволяющее избавиться от антропоморфного понятия "измерение", которое мне (также, как и аффтару) никогда не нравилось:
To put the point more accurately it’s necessary to acknowledge that we ourselves are physical systems, and what actually emerges from a measurement are the tripartite correlations between us, the classical subsystem, and the inaccessible subsystem. It is because we have developed the ability to make sense of some of the correlations between ourselves and classical systems, that we get something useful out of this process. But this is a property of us — not of the inanimate physical world. Measurement, the classical world, and human knowledge enter the picture only when we ask how we can extract information about the correlations that constitute the world. The correlations themselves, however, are there whether or not we take the trouble to learn about them. The question of how we are able to understand correlations between ourselves and the accessible “classical” systems we have arranged to correlate with the inaccessible “quantum” systems is known as the problem of consciousness. It’s a very difficult problem — much more difficult, in my opinion, than the interpretation of quantum mechanics. But it is a problem about us. It is not a problem that has anything to do with what is objectively real about those parts of the physical world that can be well isolated from us.
Это на самом деле огромный шаг в проведении черты между "real world" и теми моделями, которые мы строим, чтобы как-то его аппроксимировать. А то слишком многие путают одно с другим. Контрольныйвыстрел вопрос - существуют ли кварки "на самом деле"?
Зато нашел хорошее решение, позволяющее избавиться от антропоморфного понятия "измерение", которое мне (также, как и аффтару) никогда не нравилось:
To put the point more accurately it’s necessary to acknowledge that we ourselves are physical systems, and what actually emerges from a measurement are the tripartite correlations between us, the classical subsystem, and the inaccessible subsystem. It is because we have developed the ability to make sense of some of the correlations between ourselves and classical systems, that we get something useful out of this process. But this is a property of us — not of the inanimate physical world. Measurement, the classical world, and human knowledge enter the picture only when we ask how we can extract information about the correlations that constitute the world. The correlations themselves, however, are there whether or not we take the trouble to learn about them. The question of how we are able to understand correlations between ourselves and the accessible “classical” systems we have arranged to correlate with the inaccessible “quantum” systems is known as the problem of consciousness. It’s a very difficult problem — much more difficult, in my opinion, than the interpretation of quantum mechanics. But it is a problem about us. It is not a problem that has anything to do with what is objectively real about those parts of the physical world that can be well isolated from us.
Это на самом деле огромный шаг в проведении черты между "real world" и теми моделями, которые мы строим, чтобы как-то его аппроксимировать. А то слишком многие путают одно с другим. Контрольный