= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on Should I believe what the SIAI claims? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (600)
MWI just calculates the wavefunction.
Copenhagen calculates the wavefunction but then has additional rules saying when some of the branches collapse.
Bohm calculates the wavefunction and then says that particles have single positions but are guided by the wavefunction.
But MWI doesn't get the right calculation in terms of probability
Good point. I'd say that it doesn't have any calculation of the probability. But some people hope that the probabilities can be derived from just MW. If they achieve this then it would be the simplest theory. But if they need extra hypotheses then it will gain complexity, and may well come out worse than Bohm.