On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:59 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:58 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > *> one somehow has to relate the amplitudes of the wave function basis >> vectors to the probabilities. * > > > *True. And if the amplitude of the wave function of an electron at a point > is 1/√2 (or 0.5 + 0.5i since it's a complex function) and if you take the > square of the absolute value of that amplitude then you get 0.5, which an > experimentalist will note is also the probability of observing the electron > at that point. * > > * > MWI does assume that the wavefunction is a real physical object, * > > > *It seems to me that you're OK with assuming that the wave function is a > "real physical object",* > I think it is the MWI advocates who are obsessed with the wave function being a physical object. A reason that is routinely put forward in favour of MWI is that it avoids the "collapse". But collapse is only a problem (involving instantaneous action at a distance, or FTL effects) if the wave function is a real physical object. If the wave function is purely epistemic (or a summary of our knowledge of the physics), and hence only a way of calculating probabilities, there is no physical collapse, and therefore no more problem than occurs thousands of times a day on a roulette wheel at the casino. 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/CAFxXSLTv3%2BS3%2BNpH_fN2mJ49%3Dcsd3%3D8RvHsRHvQRn%3DYOAwYOvg%40mail.gmail.com.
