And towards the interpretations of expressions.
For instance, there is a complete difference between reduction to set theory and basis upon an axiomatic system. Probability theory is now commonly done in one or the other way. The latter is sometimes called the ‘Jeffreys interpretation’.
And there is the misinterpretation of Dirac notation by physicists, as referring to physical entities that I assure you do not exist. The proper interpretation is as propositions.
Just because a physicist has a PhD in Physics and I have some lesser qualification in a different field does not make it so that the physicist is correct. Actually it is the physicist who is straying outside their field—into random process analysis—but they will bully you into ignoring that. And it is irrelevant.
Because anyone who believes in instantaneous action at a distance is a damn fool—especially if they are a physicist and believe it occurs between fragments of the EM field.
Barry Schwartz 🫖
Paul Healey