> John K Clark:
>
>The trouble with Quantum mechanics isn't that it has no interpretation it's
>that it has too many and they all work. Everett's many world
interpretation is
>consistent with all experimental results performed up to now, the same is
true
>of John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation, or David Bohm's Pilot Wave
>Interpretation or Niels Boor's Copenhagen Interpretation. Which one is right?
>All of them? None of them?
>
IMHO, every "interpretation" of QM is an attempt to take our ordinary human
perception and project this into QM. If you look at QM as a way to predict
measurements, it works out beautifully, just as John's note re Feynman
states. "Many Worlds", "Observers", "Collapse of the Wave Function" are all
just gibberish. Entertaining, though.
O--------------------------------O | Hara Ra <harara@shamanics.com> | | Box 8334 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 | | | | Man, Debug Thyself | | - Graffiti at People's | | Computer Company - 1976 | O--------------------------------O