Emily Adlam

speaker

1,263 appearances 3 recordings 1 series first heard Apr 2025 last heard 20 Jul

Emily Adlam’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months

Recordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Jul 2026 with 1.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment

Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal · Emily Adlam & David Wallace: The Quantum Interpretation That Divides Physicists · 20 Jul 2026 podcast

If you say that, then you kind of cut off the means that we have to make empirical connections between the formalism of quantum mechanics and observed results.

You just wouldn't be able to use any observed results to conclude anything about that.

what states are correct or whether your evolution equations are correct or anything that you might want to try to verify about the formalism.

So either way, there just seems to be really serious problems to understanding how the tubus view can make sense of the connections between the actual observations we've made that have led us to arrive at quantum mechanics and the formalism itself.

Yeah, I mean, I think the cubists are right to draw attention to the fact that quantum mechanics has been designed from a standpoint and incorporates various aspects of that standpoint, and that's an important thing to think about when interpreting it.

And, you know, because I think relational approaches are plausible, I think the idea that...

States are in some sense relative to a context or to an observer or something has some merit.

But I think taking it to the degree where there are just no facts at all about what the right states are and nobody can ever correct anyone else about that.

I think that that is obviously going too far and doesn't do justice to the way in which the formula is actually used.

Yeah, and I don't necessarily think that's a justification for an epistemic interpretation.

I think that's a justification for perhaps thinking more carefully than we have in the past about the ways in which our embodied standpoint might have influenced the way in which quantum mechanics has been formulated.

Well, I guess the style that I do is partly informed by the fact that I was originally a physicist.

I mean, my PhD was in physics.

And so, you know, I think my motivation has always been similar to the physicists.

And so the philosophy that I do, even when it is quite on a quite philosophical topics,

I think for me is motivated by wanting to understand what's going on with the physics and have better ways of sort of talking about what's happening with the physics with the hope of sort of being part of the advance of physics.

I think there are other approaches to the philosophy of physics which are much more interested in taking what we know about physics and using that to answer questions.

philosophical questions that have been around for a long time or to get a new view on those types of things um and whereas yeah i think i'm i'm more on the side of trying to use sort of the philosophical styles of thinking to clarify ideas about physics so i guess that's one one difference to some other types of ways of doing the subject

Yeah, I mean, somewhat similar.

Yes, there are many areas of philosophy that I am interested in that I'm not competent to work in.

Showing 181–200 of 1,263 · page 10 of 64