On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 9:40 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 5:17 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *>> Me: Does your preferred quantum interpretation, whatever it is, do any >>> better in that regard? If several quantum interpretations produce identical >>> observable results then Occam's Razor says that the preferred one would be >>> the one that makes the fewest assumptions. And that would be Many Worlds. I >>> remind you that all those many many worlds are NOT an assumption, instead >>> they are a CONSEQUENCE of simply assuming that Schrodinger's equation means >>> what it says, and the equation says NOTHING about a wave function >>> collapsing.* >>> >> >> *> Schrodinger's equation says nothing at all about the wave function. >> For example, if it is not real but only epistemic, then there is no need >> for a physical collapse.* >> > > *If something works, and in this case works really really well, then it is > not at all clear to me why you should assume that the thing that works so > well is not real. And in that context I'm not even sure what you mean by > "real". * > Physically real,* i.e.* existing as an entity in time and space. *> The Schrodinger equation does not say that the wave function is a >> physically real object* >> > > *True, and a Newtonian equation for the movement of a billiard ball does > not say that the billiard ball is a real physical object either, therefore > I would conclude that the quantum wave function is as real or unreal as a > billiard ball.* > Newton's equations of motion enable us to calculate the future trajectories of billiard balls. The equations themselves say nothing whatsoever about whether or not such objects as billiard balls exist as physical objects. It is the same with Schrodinger's equation -- it enables us to calculate probabilities, but says nothing at all about whether the wave function, or atoms and the like, exist as independent physical objects. You can make assumptions about these things, but then, they are just assumptions...... *> **the the wave function can be seen as merely a device for calculating >> the evolution of probabilities* >> > > *OK, but since it has been working so well, why do you assume you should > stop using it to calculate things after a "measurement" (whatever that ill > defined word is supposed to mean) is made?* > Because the equation itself does not say what a "measurement" is, or what happens after one is made. Anything you might suppose about "measurement", and how objects behave after "measurement", are just assumptions on your part -- with no experimental basis. Bruce -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTNQUM0K1cigoudxvryn6tcx_xYcPqprzLK1ekG13U27A%40mail.gmail.com.
