Davide De Biasio @davidedebiasio.bsky.social · 14/11/2024Ok, #quantum #physics Bluesky people: how do you like your quantum foundations? Are states ontic, epistemic or a secret, more complex third thing? #philosophy #science #debate 863
Ken Wharton @kenwharton.bsky.social · 27/12/2024Not too many responses here, but I noticed that most people who weighed in here seem to agree that QM should be viewed in a framework with nonstandard views of time and/or temporal evolution. Specifically: @boazhsan.bsky.social @elegant-light.bsky.social @twtww.bsky.social … and myself. 1/3 210
Ken Wharton @kenwharton.bsky.social · 13/12/2024What, no takers on this yet? 😃 Quantum states are obviously epistemic. Just a big look-up table. <there, that should do it!> 120
David Abergel @davidabergel.bsky.social · 13/12/2024Generally I'm of the 'shut up and calculate' school. 200
twtww @twtww.bsky.social · 16/12/2024and I am in the process of editing a video about this. Should be out this weekend. 000
Boaz Nash @boazhsan.bsky.social · 16/12/2024I like Barandes' quantum statistics correspondence in which there is an underlying real, stochastic process and the wave function is derived from that. And quantum weirdness comes from a breakdown of the Markov principle. 120
Adrian Thompson @gooble-gabble.bsky.social · 16/12/2024Epistemic...I have my own pet interpretation which I think falls into one of the statistical physics buckets, but I've never taken the time to go through all these in any in detail 010
wdherndon.bsky.social @wdherndon.bsky.social · 30/12/2024"Are states ...?" Yes. It's nice looking back at your old posts and seeing that your views are similar to mine: that our intuitions regarding time are wrong and that simultaneity is relative. :-) 010
