Popper vs Physics as Finite Precision Computation

Today, physics is in a crisis....it is a crisis of understanding...roughly as old as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics...(in 1982 Preface to Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics)

Karl Popper's vision expressed in The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery (with the above book as Vol III), is a science of modern quantum physics which shares the following characteristics of classical physics:

1. Realism
2. Determinism                           (A)
3. Objectivism.

Popper compares this paradigm of rationality with the ruling paradigm of modern physics being the exact opposite as an irrationality characterised by:

1. Idealism
2. Indeterminism                        (B)
3. Subjectivism.

The crisis of modern physics acknowledged by all prominent physicists of today, can be viewed as an effect of (B). It is no wonder that (B) being an irrational opposite to a rational (A), has led to a crisis. 

The reason the paradigm (A) of classical macroscopic physics was replaced by (B) when Planck-Bohr-Born-Heisenberg shaped the ruling (Copenhagen) paradigm of modern physics, was a perceived impossibility to (i) explain the phenomena of black-body radiation by classical electrodynamics and (ii) to give the standard multi-dimensional (uncomputable) wave function of Schrödinger's equation describing microsopic atomic physics, a physical meaning.  

I have been led to a version of Popper's paradigm (A) viewing physics as

• finite precision computation  

where (i) and (ii) can be handled in a natural way and the resort to the extreme position (B) can be avoided. This paradigm is outlined as Computational Blackbody Radiation and The World as Computation. 

In particular I have explored a computable three-dimensional alternative version of Schrödinger's equation conforming to (A) and I will present computational results in upcoming posts. In particular, it appears that this (computable) version explains the periodic table more directly than the standard (uncomputable) one. More precisely, an uncomputable mathematical model is useless and cannot be used to explain anything.

PS The crisis in physics rooted in the Copenhagen interpretation has deepened after Poppers 1982 analysis, following a well known tactic to handle a pressing problem, which appears to be unsolvable: make the problem even more severe and unsolvable and thereby relieve the pressure from the original problem. Today we can observe this tactic in extreme form with physicists flooding media with fantasy stories about dark matter, dark energy, parallel worlds and cats in superposition of being both dead and alive, all phenomena of which nothing is known. The Dark Ages appears as enlightened against this background.

Dystert Resultat av KTH-Gate = Noll: SimuleringsTeknik Läggs Ner

KTH-gate är benämningen på på den aktion som KTH riktade mot mitt verk som innebar att min ebok Mathematical Simulation Technology (MST) avsedd att användas inom det nya kandidatprogrammet i Simuleringsteknik och Virtuell Design (STVD), mitt under pågående testkurs under HT10 förbjöds av KTH (för en fullständig redogörelse för detta drama, som saknar motsvarighet inom demokratisk stats akademi, se här, här, här och här).

Resultatet av censuringripandet blev att kandidatprogrammet separerades från den grupp av lärare som initierat programmet med avsikt att driva detsamma och för detta fått KTHs stöd. Sålunda startade STVD HT12 på en grund av gamla kurser i numerisk analys under ledning av en annan grupp lärare i numerisk analys, detta utan marknadsföring och resultatet blev därefter: Noll intresse, noll söktryck, noll intagningsbetyg, noll aktualitet = noll resultat.

KTH insåg efter två år att det var totalt meningslöst att driva ett sådant program och HT14 fattade så Leif Kari, skolchef på skolan för Teknikvetenskap och huvudansvarig för censureringen av MST, det helt följdriktiga beslutet att lägga ner STVD (eller med omskrivning låta det vara "vilande") enligt denna offentliga handling (som registrator vänligt nog grävt fram då varken Leif Kari eller någon annan inblandad velat svara på mina upprepade frågor om status för STVD). Man kan i denna  skakande rapport läsa:

• väldigt lågt söktryck
• stora svårigheter för studenterna att klara studierna
• förkunskaper alldeles för svaga
• mindre an 20% klarar uppflyttningskraven. 

Så har då KTH lyckats med sitt uppsåt att stoppa ett alltför lovande initiativ från en alltför internationellt stark gruppering på KTH, under uppvisande av komplett inkompetens på alla nivåer. KTH har således genom censur förstört ett potentiellt högt värde och ersatt det med noll. Bra jobbat enligt KTHs rektor Peter Gudmundson, som aktivt deltog i bokbränningen 2010; när böcker bränns återstår bara aska.

Ironiskt nog har Leif Kari och Skolan för Teknikvetenskap dock inte låtit sig nedslås av detta dystra resultat utan arbetar nu aktivt för att uppgradera det havererade kandidatprogrammet i Simuleringsteknik till ett nytt civilingenjörsprogram i Teknisk Matematik enligt detta tilläggsbeslut. Fakultetsrådet har naturligtvis inte tillstyrkt inrättandet av detta program (se här 13d), då logiken saknas: Om KTH inte är kapabelt att driva en kandidatutbildning inom teknisk matematik/simuleringsteknik, är KTH (som landets främsta tekniska högskola) än mindre kapabelt att driva ett civilingenjörsprogram med samma inriktning.

PS Så här beskrevs programmet av KTH när det startade 2012:

• Simuleringsteknik och virtuell design är ett nytt program på KTH som utvecklats för att möta det ökande behovet av datorsimulering. 
• Utbildningen ger dig karriärmöjligheter inom många branscher, från verkstads- och processindustri, miljö- och energisektorn, via dataspel och animering, medicin och bioteknik till finansbranschen. 
• Du kan exempelvis jobba som beräkningskonsult, expert på visualisering och informationsgrafik eller som programdesigner. 
• Det nya kandidatprogrammet bygger på en mycket stark forsknings- och utbildningsmiljö inom detta område på KTH och är unikt i Sverige.

Ja, det är sannerligen unikt med sådan missskötsel, trots (eller kanske på grund av) KTHs priviligierade position. 

Frank Wilczek: Ugly Answer to Ugly Question

In his new book A Beautiful Question: Finding Nature's Deep Design, Frank Wilczek (Nobel Prize in Physics 2004) starts out stating the questions (or paradoxes) which motivated the development of modern physics:

In the quantum world of atoms and light, Nature treats us to a show of strange and seemingly impossible feats. Two of these feats seemed, when discovered, particularly impossible:

• Light comes in lumps. This is demonstrated in the photoelectric effect, as we’ll discuss momentarily. It came as a shock to physicists. After Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory was confirmed in Hertz’s experiments (and later many others), physicists had thought they understood what light is. Namely, light is electromagnetic waves. But electromagnetic waves are continuous.
• Atoms have parts, but are perfectly rigid. Electrons were first clearly identified in 1897, by J. J. Thomson. The most basic facts about atoms were elucidated over the following fifteen years or so. In particular: atoms consist of tiny nuclei containing almost all of their mass and all of their positive electric charge, surrounded by enough negatively charged electrons to make a neutral whole. Atoms come in different sizes, depending on the chemical element, but they’re generally in the ballpark of $10^{-8}$ centimeters, a unit of length called an angstrom. Atomic nuclei, however, are a hundred thousand times smaller. The paradox: How can such a structure be stable? Why don’t the electrons simply succumb to the attractive force from the nucleus, and dive in.
• These paradoxical facts led Einstein and Bohr, respectively, to propose some outrageous, half-right hypotheses that served as footholds on the steep ascent to modern quantum theory. 
• After epic struggles, played out over more than a decade of effort and debate, an answer emerged. It has held up to this day, and its roots have grown so deep that it seems unlikely ever to topple.

Wilczek then proceeds to prepare us to accept the answers offered by the modern physics of quantum mechanics as the result of epic struggles:

• The framework known as quantum theory, or quantum mechanics, was mostly in place by the late 1930s. 
• Quantum theory is not a specific hypothesis, but a web of closely intertwined ideas. I do not mean to suggest quantum theory is vague—it is not. 
• With rare and usually temporary exceptions, when faced with any concrete physical problem, all competent practitioners of quantum mechanics will agree about what it means to address that problem using quantum theory. 
• But few, if any, would be able to say precisely what assumptions they have made to get there. Coming to terms with quantum theory is a process, through which the work will teach you how to do it.

We learn that quantum mechanics is not built on specific hypotheses or assumptions, but nevertheless is not vague, and instead rather is a process monitored by competent practitioners. In any case, Wilczek proceeds to give us a glimpse of the basic hypothesis:

• In quantum theory’s description of the world, the fundamental objects are ....wave functions.
• Any valid physical question about a physical system can be answered by consulting its wave function.
• But the relation between question and answer is not straightforward. Both the way that wave functions answer questions and the answers they give have surprising—not to say weird—features.

OK, so we are now enlightened by understanding that the answers that come out are weird. Wilczek continues:

• I will focus on the specific sorts of wave functions we need to describe the hydrogen atom: 
• We are interested, then, in the wave function that describes a single electron bound by electric forces to a tiny, much heavier proton.
• Before discussing the electron’s wave function, we’ll do well to describe its probability cloud. The probability cloud is closely related to the wave function. The probability cloud is easier to understand than the wave function, and its physical meaning is more obvious, but it is less fundamental. (Those oracular statements will be fleshed out momentarily).
• Quantum mechanics does not give simple equations for probability clouds. Rather, probability clouds are calculated from wave functions.
• The wave function of a single particle, like its probability cloud, assigns an amplitude to all possible positions of the particle. In other words, it assigns a number to every point in space. 
• To pose questions, we must perform specific experiments that probe the wave function in different ways.
• You get probabilities, not definite answers.
• You don’t get access to the wave function itself, but only a peek at processed versions of it.
• Answering different questions may require processing the wave function in different ways.
• Each of those three points raises big issues.

Wilczek then tackles these issues by posing new questions, or lacking question by retreating to an admirable attitude of humility in a lesson of wisdom: 

• The first raises the issue of determinism. Is calculating probabilities really the best we can do?
• The second raises the issue of many worlds. What does the full wavefunction describe, when we’re not peeking? Does it represent a gigantic expansion of reality, or is it just a mind tool, no more real than a dream?
• The third raises the issue of complementarity....It is a lesson in humility that quantum theory forces to our attention. To probe is to interact, and to interact is potentially to disturb.
• Complementarity is both a feature of physical reality and a lesson in wisdom.

We see that Wilczek sells the usual broth of strange and seemingly impossible feats, weird features, and outrageous half-right hypotheses, all raising big issues. Wilczek sums up by the following quote of Walt Whitman under the headline COMPLEMENTARITY AS WISDOM:

             Do I contradict myself?

             Very well, then, I contradict myself,

              I am large, I contain multitudes.

But physics is not poetry, and contradictory poetry does not justify contradictory physics. Contradictory mathematical physics cannot be true real physics, not even meaningful poetry. To get big by contradiction is a trade of politics, which is ugly and not beautiful.

Nevertheless, Wilczek started his Nobel lecture as follows:

• In theoretical physics, paradoxes are good. That’s paradoxical, since a paradox appears to be a contradiction, and contradictions imply serious error. But Nature cannot realize contradictions. When our physical theories lead to paradox we must find a way out. Paradoxes focus our attention, and we think harder.

We understand that to Wilczek/modern physicists, contradictions are good rather than catastrophical and the more paradox the better, since it makes physicists focus attention to think harder.  Beautiful. For more excuses, see What Is Quantum Theory. Wilczek here retells the story of the Father (or Dictator) of Quantum Mechanics, Niels Bohr:

• How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.

The paradox presented itself in 1925, but what happened to the hope of progress? Is paradoxical physics the physics of our time? Does light come in lumps? Why are atoms stable? Despite paradoxes, no real progress for 90 years!!??

PS1 Here is the question killing the probability interpretation of the wave function: Since the wave function for the ground state of Hydrogen is non-zero even far away from the kernel, does it mean that there is a non-zero chance of experimentally detecting a Hydrogen ground state electron far away from the kernel it is associated with? Or the other way around, since the wave function is maximal at zero distance from the kernel, does it mean that one will mostly find the electron hiding inside the kernel?

PS2 Beauty is an expression of order and deep design, not of disorder and lack of design. An atomistic world ruled by chance can be beautiful only to a professional statistician obsessed by computing mean values.

PS3 Not Even Wrong presents the book as follows: Frank Wilczek’s new book, A Beautiful Question, is now out and if you’re at all interested in issues about beauty and the deep structure of reality, you should find a copy and spend some time with it. As he explains at the very beginning:

• This book is a long meditation on a single question:
• Does the world embody beautiful ideas?

To me (and I think to Wilczek), the answer to the question has always been an unambiguous “Yes”. The more difficult question is “what does such a claim about beauty and the world mean?” and that’s the central concern of the book.

PS4 Wilczek expresses a tendency shared by many modern physicists of pretending to know all of chemistry "in principle", simply by writing down a Schrödinger equation on a piece of paper, however without actually being able to predict anything specific because solutions of the equation cannot by computed: 

• Wave functions that fully describe the physical state of several electrons occupy spaces of very high dimension. The wave function for two electrons lives in a six-dimensional space, the wave function for three electrons lives in a nine-dimensional space, and so forth. The equations for these wave functions rapidly become quite challenging to solve, even approximately, and even using the most powerful computers. This is why chemistry remains a thriving experimental enterprise, even though in principle we know the equations that govern it, and that should enable us to calculate the results of experiments in chemistry without having to perform them.

In this illusion game, the uncomputability of the Schrödinger's many-dimensional equation relieves the physicist from the real task of explaining the actual physics of chemistry, while the physicist can still safely take the role of being in charge of principal theoretical chemistry underlying a "thriving experimental enterprise", which "in principle" is superfluous. Beautiful? 

Johan Rockström: CO2 Global Warming May Prevent New Ice Age

Johan Rockström, Executive Director of Stockholm Resilience Centre and leading Swedish CO2 global warming alarmist, admits that emission of CO2 may prevent new ice age (1.24 into news program):

• Paradoxically this appears to be a positive effect of global warming.

This adds another paradox to the already long list of paradoxes of CO2 global warming.

Collapse of Modern Physics: Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change made at the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting on Mainau Island at Lake Constance and signed by the following physicists,  among 35 other Laureates, Stephen Chu, Peter Doherty, David Gross, Brian Schmidt and George Smooth, states that (with my numbering an comments added):

1. We believe that our world today faces another threat (global warming) of comparable magnitude to that of nuclear weapons. (Comparable in what sense?)
2. Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. (Physicists are helping mankind to prosperity) 
3. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. (Poor people are consuming more and more)
4. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. (Ultimate doomsday scenario. Purpose?)
5. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.  (What impact?)
6. In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. (Scientists will tell what to do)
7. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. (Best source compared to what?)
8. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process. (Physicists know nothing about climate)
9. Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. (Uncertainty as to precise extent? But alarming! Identified risks? Human prosperity to whom?)
10. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades. (Effect of dramatic reduction? On climate? On people?)
11. Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. (Rapid progress? Minimize substantial risks?)
12. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. (Decisive actions by whom? Limit future global emissions, for whom?) 
13. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. (Physicists will tell the world what to do)
14. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk. (Failure to do what? What is unconscionable and unacceptable risk?

The fact that Physics Nobel Laureates sign a political document like this can be seen as a logical consequence of the collapse in modern physics of the rationality of classical physics, a collapse into stupidity which will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risks. 

Modern Physics: Meaningless Sacrifice of Causality, Rationality and Reality?

Hermann von Helmholtz in Conservation of Force (1862-63): Reason we call that faculty innate in us of discovering laws and applying them with thought...there is a kind, I might almost say, of artistic satisfaction,when we are able to survey the enormous wealth of Nature as a regular-ordered whole--a cosmos, an image of the logical thought of our mind.

Modern physics in the form of relativity theory and quantum mechanics was born from a perceived impossibility of solving the following "problems" using methods of classical deterministic continuum physics:

1. Second law of thermodynamics (irreversibility in formally reversible systems).
2. Blackbody radiation (including avoidance of an ultraviolet catastrophe).
3. Existence of a unique aether medium for propagation of electromagnetic waves. 

Boltzmann "solved" 1. by introducing statistical physics, thus giving up classical determinism or causality.

Planck "solved" 2. introducing a smallest quantum of energy, thus giving up the classical continuum of rational mechanics.

Einstein "solved" 3. by freeing electromagnetics from an aether, thus giving up classical coordinates of space and time describing reality. 

In each case the sacrifice of pillars classical physics was monumental and the grandness of the sacrifice was taken as a sign that it was inevitable and thus justified: No physicist would be willing the give up so much, unless it was absolutely necessary, as expressed by Planck excusing his introducing of the quantum:

• ...the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be...

But if one day it shows that 1-3 in fact can be handled using a mild extension of classical deterministic continuum physics, then the monumental sacrifices would be unnecessary and then without rationale.

And yes, it may be that such a mild extension is possible in the form of finite precision computation exposed on The World as Computation.

This connects to Helmholtz' approach to 1. with heat as partly "incalculable" or "disordered" energy as energy with limited capability of being transformed to other forms of ("calculable") energy. This brings us back to the peak of classical physics represented by the mechanism of Helmholtz:

• Natural phenomena should be traced back to the movements of material objects which possess inalterable motive forces that are dependent only on spatial relations.
• Science, the goal of which is the comprehension of nature, must begin with the presupposition of its comprehensibility  and proceed in accordance with this assumption until, perhaps, it is forced by irrefutable facts to recognise limits beyond it may not go.

It thus appears to be possible to handle 1. and 2. by classical mechanism modified by finite precision computation. Further, 3. may be handled as suggested by the British physicist Ebenezer Cunningham (1881-1977) by viewing an aether is an immaterial space-time coordinate systems with the observed non-existence of a unique aether medium simply as an expression of the possibility of choosing many immaterial aethers/coordinate systems.

It thus may be that the monumental sacrifices made by modern physicists in order to cope with 1-3, are not necessary, and as such represent human stupidity, rather than heroic victory of the power of the human mind as official truth of modern physics propagated by modern physicists. 

QM on Shaky Ground, Still after 90 Years

Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics (2006) states in Introductory Article: Quantum Mechanics:

• QM in its present formulation is a refined and and successful instrument for the description of the non relativistic phenomena at the Planck scale, but its internal inconsistency is still standing on shaky ground.
• In this section we describe some of the conceptual problems which plague present day QM...

How is it possible that today 90 years after the formulation of Schrödinger's equation as the foundation of QM, this foundation is still inconsistent and shaky, plagued by conceptual problems. What have physicists been doing all these years?

Solway Conference 1927

New Theory of Flight Accepted for Publication in Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics

The ground-breaking article New Theory of Flight is now accepted for publication in Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. The paralyzing spells of Prandtl, father of modern fluid mechanics, and Kutta and Zhukovsky, fathers of modern aerodynamics, are now finally broken after more than 100 years of misleading unphysical mathematics. A post-modern era of (computational mathematical) fluid mechanics and aerodynamics is now approaching...

Spencer Struggles with The Greenhouse Effect and Dragons

Roy Spencer continues his long struggle to convince the world that the Greenhouse Effect as the scientific foundation of CO2 global warming hysteria, is real physics:

• I’ve had a request to (once again) go through an explanation of the (poorly-named) Greenhouse Effect (GHE). Hopefully there is something which follows that will help you understand this complex subject.

Here is Roy's explanation:

• The atmosphere DOES absorb IR energy. The IR absorption coefficients at various wavelengths, temperature, and pressures have been measured for water vapor, CO2, etc., in laboratories and published for decades.
• This absorption means the atmosphere also EMITS IR energy, both upward and downward. And it is that DOWNWARD flow of IR energy (sometimes called “back radiation”) which is necessary for net warming of the surface from the greenhouse effect.

Then Roy reveals the reason behind his irresistible urge to educate the world about the greenhouse effect:

• (Technical diversion: This is where the Sky Dragon Slayers get tripped up. They claim the colder atmosphere cannot emit IR downward toward a warmer surface below, when in fact all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is that the NET flow of energy in all forms be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is still true in my discussion.)

Roy's heavy weapon intended to kill those nasty Sky Dragon Slayers is:

• You can measure the greenhouse effect yourself with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky, which measures the temperature change caused by a change in downwelling IR radiation. In a clear sky, the indicated temperature pointing straight up (“seeing” higher altitudes) will be colder than if pointed at an angle (measuring lower altitudes). This is direct evidence of the greenhouse effect…changes in downwelling IR change the temperature of a surface (the microbolometer in the handheld IR thermometer). That is the greenhouse effect.

Then Roy shows that he is a humble and open-minded serious scientist: 

• If I’ve make a mistake in the above, I’ll fix it. I realize some might not like the way I’ve phrased certain things. But I’ve been working in this field over 20 years, and the above is the best I can do in 1-2 hours time....you will find it is a complex subject, indeed.

And yes Roy,  you make a mistake by uncritically accepting a reading of a hand-held IR-thermometer, which being a thermometer measures temperature, as evidence of the reality of downward IR. You can read about your mistake under the category "pyrgeometer" including the following key posts:

• How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer
• GHE Fabricated by Kipp&Zonen Pyrgeometer
• The DLR-meter Formula behing CO2 Alarmism
• BIG BLUFF: Pyrgeometer DLR as Bolometer OLR

And so Roy, what is your reaction to the evidence I present?

PS Roy appears to filter my comment to his post with a link to the above. Of course, it is Roy's responsibility to guarantee that his readers and users/buyers (not to speak of manufacturers such as  Kipp&Zonen) of hand-held IR-thermometers, are not reached by disturbing information: Nobody wants to get told that the reading of a thermometer is temperature, since that is so evident to anyone with slightest education in science. In particular, Roy does not want to get told that he has been cheated by Kipp&Zonen in believing that the thermometer he bought measures Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) and not temperature , and accordingly will no respond to my question. Under the choice of saying something (and revealing ignorance), and saying nothing (only indicating ignorance), Roy chooses to say nothing. But nothing is nothing.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics??

If you ask a physicist today about the foundations of modern physics (the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), you will get most likely get the answer that all basic questions were answered long ago and neither questions nor answers need to be repeated. In short, "science is settled", and the question now is simply how to advance physics further into the unknowns of dark matter, dark energy, string theory and multiversa.

In particular, the answer for quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen Interpretation coined by Heisenberg in the 1950s as an expression of the influence of the Danish physicist Niels Bohr during the formative years of modern physics following the introduction by Max Planck in 1900 of the smallest quantum of action $h$. 

One of the few who still worries about the foundations of quantum mechanics is Lubos Motl, who in a sequence of posts on The Reference Frame states his commitment to the Copenhagen Interpretation based on the following postulates:

1. A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, representing an observer's subjective knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)
2. The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of an event related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it. (The Born rule, after Max Born)
3. It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)
4. Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure only classical properties such as position and momentum.
6. The quantum mechanical description of large systems will closely approximate the classical description. (The correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg)  

Let us now analyze these postulates from scientific point of view. We find:

1. The idea that the wave function represents the subjective knowledge of a system, makes quantum mechanics into a personal experience, which cannot be science.
2. The idea that nature "essentially is probabilistic" is an ad hoc assumption, which can never be experimentally tested and thus does not belong to science.
3. Impossibility of knowledge contradicts scientific principle: Why does certain knowledge make other knowledge impossible?
4. Wave-particle duality as contradictory reality, does no make sense.
5. Divison of physics into "classical" and "non-classical" is without reason. Physics is physics.
6. Without division between "classical" and "non-classical", the idea that "non-classical" will approximate "classical", lacks rationale.  

I leave to the reader to evaluate the scientific value and rationality of these postulates supposedly expressing the contribution to humanity and the science of physics from what is called "modern physics".