rationalskepticism.org

AMR wrote:Talk about a cretin not having a clue.

The interpretation of quantum mechanics is an ongoing subject of debate from its first theoretical inception to the present day.

Who said anything about interpretation? I certainly haven't. I've only talked about what we actually know, and there's been nothing remotely controversial in any of my posts in that regard.

The uncertainty principle has no meaning without an observer. The uncertainty principle concerns measurements of physical phenomena.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for once again exposing that you have no fucking clue of what you're talking about. The uncertainty principle is a fundamental property of the universe and doesn't require observations. Once again, the citation from your own cited source that fucks your argument up the arse with a cheese-covered stick:

This is not due to imprecise measurements. Technology is advanced enough to hypothetically yield correct measurements. The blurring of these magnitudes is a fundamental property of nature.

Measurements require observers.

Indeed they do, but the uncertainty principle exists without observation. It is the collapse of the wavefunction that requires observation. I note that this has now been pointed out to you about ten times and you still don't get it.

There are at least a dozen prominent interpretations of QM that differ concerning determinism, reality of the wavefunction, collapsibility of the wavefunction, histories of particles, hidden variables, and the role of the observer.

Yes, and those interpretations are attempts at explaining the facts. None of this has any bearing on the FACT that the uncertainty principle does not require observation, and nothing you have cited has remotely come close to demonstrating otherwise.

Einstein never accepted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics as a "real" and complete theory.

Einstein never accepted a lot of things, and the Copenhagen is only one interpretation. That's completely irrelevant, of course, because it has fuck all to do with the FACT that the uncertainty principle does not require an observer.

And von Neumann's interpretation holds a central role for the "conscious" observer in QM.

All of which is irrelevant, and that's completely aside from the fact that most physicists preferred Dirac's approach. The role of the observer in QM does not, however, equate to the role of the observer in the uncertainty principle, because the role of the observer in the uncertainty principle is in the collapse of the wavefunction, not the principle of quantum uncertainty itself. You have typed a lot of meaningless text here that does not remotely support your position in a vacuous attempt to make it look like you actually have any idea of what you're talking about. You don't.

Personally I'm not advocating any one position here (I'm a QM agnostic) my role has been merely to show that lively debate on the subject exists.

Oh, a QM agnostic, eh? Well colour me unsurprised. We get a lot of QM agnostics here, little realising that the well-established principles they are agnostic on are responsible for their ability to post this ignorant fucking guff in the first place. You have not the first idea of what you're talking about, and it's clear that you're just grabbing material that you think supports your position (and I give you credit for being one of the better examples I've come across), but to the scientifically literate members here who actually understand the material you're discussing, both this and the other topics you have been getting your arse handed to you with regard to throughout the course of this thread, it's clear that you don't actually grasp the subject matter.

hackenslash: Define 'physical universe'.

The sum of all matter, energy and space that is observable or detectable, and all other matter, energy, and space that may be causally linked.

Right, then your definition of 'universe' is almost, but not quite, complete. It does, however, include whatever preceded the big bang. I suggest you go and have a look at the implications for that in your questions, as you may want to reformulate them to take that into account.

For my part, in light of this almost very rigorous definition, I think the concept of 'before' or 'creation' is entirely meaningless, because the universe is simply 'all that is' (note how I managed to get from your almost rigorous definition to an entirely rigorous definition simply by trimming it back to three words?)

Oldskeptic: If you want to talk about the 1st law or the 2nd law or entropy then you should try to gain an understanding of them.

Pot to kettle. . . .

Oh dear.