“What is the difference between faith and superstition?”
“Is superstition on a par with religion?”
We have no tools that can accurately measure to 10^-43 of a second. Our best tools at present go to around 10^-13 seconds.
That unit of time comes from relationships in the equations that indicate what the shortest click of useful time might be. And it all gets a bit messy when one starts working with quantum stuff at that level, and things don’t quite mean what they do in the ordinary space of our common perceptions, and it does give the general flavour of an idea.
If we get a reasonable set of evidence that Quantum Mechanics are not an accurate description, then holding on to that belief would then qualify one as having a superstition.
I am beginning to accept the notion that the very idea of causality, and the idea that logic may be directly applicable to reality, might in fact be an illusion, despite all of the many successes.
So there is a sense in which I have pre-accepted that many of the thing I currently find useful will likely be shown to be “superstition” in a sense, and I have no idea which. So until I have evidence to the contrary, I just keep on using the best guesses based on the best evidence available.
I certainly study and use logic, and I don’t get too hung up on it necessarily being applicable to any particular aspect of reality.
The thing that really got me thinking was the idea of a circle. When I started looking for a circle in reality, I couldn’t find one. Everything I looked at resolved down to something bumpy and not circular at a small enough scale. If something as simple as a circle had no direct analogue in reality, why would we expect anything more complex to be directly represented. A useful approximations to something perhaps, but not identical.
So I’m a bit like brother torch – what works does it for me, and some of the things I play with are not particularly simple.
I keep a clear distinction between the numbers of QM (which come out as matrices of probability vectors), and the meaning that people give them.
I am very happy to treat probabilities simply as probabilities, but am not aligned with any of the interpretations of those matrices that I have seen to date. The observer stuff doesn’t do much for me. In every case, before there is an “observer” there is a machine that alters the context of the experiment.
Let’s just say I give reasonable confidence to the numbers, but all the stories I’ve heard to date about what those numbers mean go into the same category as “Santa Claus”.