Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 08:14:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <vctlc9$33okb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <memo.20240913205156.19028s@jgd.cix.co.uk>
 <vcd3ds$3o6ae$2@dont-email.me>
 <2935676af968e40e7cad204d40cafdcf@www.novabbs.org>
 <2024Sep18.074007@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcds4i$3vato$1@dont-email.me>
 <2024Sep18.220953@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vcfopr$8glq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ll232oFs6asU1@mid.individual.net> <vcgo74$gkr1$3@dont-email.me>
 <ll2n1hFu4lmU1@mid.individual.net> <vchu2q$mfu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vchu67$mgk1$1@dont-email.me> <vcieqn$p8fv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vcj289$vddu$1@dont-email.me> <vcj8om$vupr$2@dont-email.me>
 <vck3t7$15g2i$1@dont-email.me> <20240922115633.00006bce@yahoo.com>
 <vct393$2tic0$16@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 08:14:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="295059a1925683a809cfd14e600ca3af";
	logging-data="3269259"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Zr3lhcrrxLIu/9KleGwU1czlN6KDSTxI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dfpxoDcVq1QH3pISNM79vQKahU0=
In-Reply-To: <vct393$2tic0$16@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2991

On 24/09/2024 03:05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 11:56:33 +0300, Michael S wrote:
> 
>> Einstein didn't like Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
> 
> He didn’t like quantum mechanics full stop. “God does not play dice”, he
> famously said. And kept trying to come up with an alternative, though he
> never succeeded. And remember, his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect
> (for which he won the Nobel Prize) was one of the foundation stones of
> this horrible new theory.
> 
> “Interpretations” of quantum mechanics had nothing to do with this: the
> probabilistic behaviour that Einstein objected to is inherent in the
> equations themselves: wave function in → probability out.

A lot of physicists don't like quantum mechanics, and its implications, 
and very few (if any) of them can claim to have a good intuitive feel 
for it.  It's a huge departure from the classical clockwork universe models.

But they still accept that it has turned out to be an excellent model 
for a lot of physics, standing strong test after test, and covering a 
wide range of situations to an astounding accuracy.  The same applies to 
Einstein - perhaps he thought it was a horrible theory, but he also 
thought it was correct (in the sense of being an accurate model of reality).