>>10861281i don't think his recent posts are pro-Copenhagen as far as i can tell. it seems he's taking the "wavefunction isn't real, QM is just the way it is because of information theory" argument. which is weird, i think there is a name for it like QBism or bayesian quantum mechanics.
what he says is sort of tautologically true, but it misses the point imho. just because QM hides the wavefunction from direct observation doesn't mean we should give up on taking QM as providing a real picture of reality. he argues that it is just an ad-hoc model and what it seems to say about the actual dynamics of the universe is nonscientific, fine. but it doesn't make me feel any better about how to understand the actual dynamics, especially when it comes to things like quantum cosmology (e.g. inflationary theory which is observationally relevant) where a bayesian type interpretation basically leaves you with no predictive power and you would have to admit that you would have no bayesian prior in assuming QM applies to the dynamics of the universe. in other words in his argument, you'd have to say "whelp, QM can't apply to the big bang unless you apply a 100% uncertainty on it, so let's give up on the CMB, bros". so pretty lame.
