Luke_A_Somers comments on [SEQ RERUN] Decoherence is Falsifiable and Testable - Less Wrong

2 Post author: MinibearRex 28 April 2012 10:11PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (12)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: shminux 29 April 2012 11:40:39PM 1 point [-]

I don't disagree with the MWI, I just object to people privileging it over any other interpretation.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 30 April 2012 02:38:14PM 1 point [-]

Like which? Copenhagen breaks every physical symmetry we have if you ever let it kick in, and is identical to MWI if you don't. Some others, like the Bohm guide-wave include MWI but refuse to recognize that they did so (anything real enough to have a causal influence on reality is itself real. The guide-wave is thus real, and the One True Worldline superfluous). The bidirectional time interpretation is blatantly erroneous (measurement is not a time-symmetric process)...

I don't know much about the transactional interpretation. Maybe that stands, but I suspect it leaves open the question of just what the transactions are between (if it doesn't, then it's making testable predictions at variance with QM as it stands, like Copenhagen)

Any others?

Comment author: shminux 30 April 2012 02:58:38PM *  1 point [-]

Copenhagen breaks every physical symmetry we have

It doesn't, except in the minds of confused people assigning ontological significance to a calculational prescription. No interpretation out there has more predictive power than "1. Do unitary evolution, 2. Apply Born rule".

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 01 May 2012 10:03:21PM 1 point [-]

If you only consider it a calculational prescription and not an ontologically real thing, then you've totally just accepted MWI!

Comment author: shminux 01 May 2012 10:55:36PM 1 point [-]

Not sure what you mean. Please feel free to elaborate on that.

Comment author: aaronsw 04 August 2012 10:14:58AM 1 point [-]

Can you unpack your argument against Bohm? Why does a real guide-wave require multiple worlds?

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 06 August 2012 12:29:51PM *  2 points [-]

The guide-wave contains everything. It's never collapsed, there's no fade-away as you recede from the worldline. The rules governing the guide-wave are exactly those of quantum mechanics, which don't mention any worldline. As far as the guide-wave is concerned, the worldline doesn't exist. It's a one-way connection. Right there we've got an oddity - the only entity in physics that would act without a reaction.

But setting that aside, the guide-wave implements the dynamics of branches not taken by the worldline. You see a nuclear decay? Nothing's halting the guide-wave from implementing the portion of that decay that occurred in a different direction at a different time. So it does. So you have the dead cat component as well as the live cat component. Wigner's friend is also still chilling out waiting for something to come up.

The guide-wave doesn't know where the worldline went, so it keeps on ticking, following the time evolution operator - and, if you choose to break it into components, meticulously working out the consequences of every one of those components - whether or not the worldline happens to be anything like that.

If you want me to think something doesn't exist, stop implementing its dynamics!