On 5/13/2022 12:32 PM, smitra wrote:
On 12-05-2022 22:27, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 5/12/2022 11:42 AM, smitra wrote:
All that the experiments demonstrate is that the wave function
evolves
unitarily between state preparation and measurement. This is most
easily accounted for by assuming that the wave function is a
purely
epistemic vehicle for the time evolution of probabilities. Since
it is
purely epistemic, collapse is not a problem since it is not a
physical
event. One does not have to go the whole way to QBism -- the wave
function can still be objective (inter-subjectively agreed).
That's possible but that means that QM is not a complete fundamental
theory of reality. Anything that explains these probabilities is
then possible, including the existence of a multiverse.
Which is about as explanatory as "God did it." Explaining the values
of the probabilities isn't the problem with MWI, it's explaining that
there ARE probabilities even though nothing happens, and when and
where the probabilities arise.
I agree with what John Clark said in his reply.
To add to that, the "God did it" thing applies far more to the CI,
because there one postulates the collapse without explaining the
mechanism for it. In the MWI one assumes that the appearance of
collapse can be explained from the known dynamics.
Right CI doesn't explain the collapse and MWI doesn't explain the
collapse either but assumes it can be explained without new physics. I
hypothesize (not assume) that CI+ <non-zero minimum probability> can
explain the collapse. I don't see any big advantage for MWI here. My
attitude toward interpretations is that they are unimportant in
themselves, but they are useful in pointing to new, more comprehensive
and accurate theories. That's one reason I'm not impressed by MWI since
it seems to ex hypothesi put any emprical testing out of reach.
Brent
Those explanations may not be satisfactory as of yet, but that's
typical for most of science. There are phenomena that as of yet are
not well explained, but that does not (necessarily) lead us to
postulate new physics all the time. Doing so would make us like
creationists who tend to invoke a "God of the gaps".
Saibal
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03b48558-b7a4-a48a-ee68-58e5e07931a4%40gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03b48558-b7a4-a48a-ee68-58e5e07931a4%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/05352b87-270a-4ffa-daba-6ba28a59f6c4%40gmail.com.
