<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Quantum mechanics was my job. It was very difficult to teach it, because the students asked good questions...
My point it that the principles of QM are absurd, while the remainder (the formalism) is evidently powerful.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I once read that Quantum Mechanics is a computational system. That is the part, I presume, everyone is so proud of. I used to love to read about the philosophy of Quantum Physics, I didn't know then all they were talking about is the system.
And I don't mean generic system as in "my system" I mean system as in general system theory ala Bertalanffy. (Whitehead's organicism) I think Einstein once said that the simplest quantum system is two quanta. I suppose that a relationship between the quanta is the focus of QM. Alfred Linde wrote a paper in which he derived QM theormodynamically, after reading it hundreds of times, I finally was able to find his two quanta bracketed by Schroedinger's equation. That's a minimal system.
Nowadays, the buzz word is complexity science, and even better than that is non-linear complexity science. Very few of these guys bothered to do their requisite prior research and are unaware of the beginnings of Wholistic Systems Science, the ontology if it all. So they re-discover all this neat stuff about systems in general, and imagining it is the first time discovered, they attach their clever names to it, as if the discovery were theirs. Subsequently, there are a hundred different names for what is essentially the same thing. Nothing wrong about that, until someone comes along, sees it, and assumes that the one hundred names are about one hundred different things. So he finds his favorite thing, and fights for it as if it were competing with the other 99 perspectives. Oh, they find that there is something fundamental going on, and they are looking for the Ur principle.
