<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1303.2719/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1303.2719/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by n4r9</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15371804</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1303.2719:15371804</guid><pubDate>Sat, 30 Sep 2017 07:58:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Warning: you shouldn&amp;#x27;t be too quick to extrapolate anything about general attitudes in quantum foundations towards various interpretations from this &amp;quot;snapshot&amp;quot; poll. There exist at least two other polls I know of with very different results[0,1]. Interesting quote from one of the abstracts: &amp;gt; the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of &amp;quot;quantum foundations&amp;quot;, sub-communities with quite different views, and that (relatedly) there is probably even significantly more controversy about several fundamental issues…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1303.2719/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item><item><title>Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics — mentioned by n4r9</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10034349</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1303.2719:10034349</guid><pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:19:45 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I meant &amp;quot;rigorous and comprehensive&amp;quot; to include &amp;quot;representative of the entire quantum community&amp;quot;. That poll was conducted at a single conference and had 33 participants. The bias inherent in this approach can be seen when the same poll was conducted at two other conferences: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2719 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4646 In both cases, de-Broglie Bohm interpretations ruled the day. As the abstract of the latter paper states: &amp;gt; ...the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of &amp;quot;quantum foundations&amp;quot;…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1303.2719/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
