= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pragmatist comments on Scott Aaronson's cautious optimism for the MWI - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (70)
But MWI advocates (at least of the Oxford variety) claim that the properties of reality emerge from the wavefunction. No additional "beables" are required. I know you disagree, but I'm pretty sure that's the sort of view Aaronson is referring to when he says MWI is mathematically simpler. The fundamental ontology is the wavefunction itself, not worlds of matter/energy whose multiplication is described by the wavefunction.
I certainly don't think Scott belongs to the Oxford school. He's probably just one of those people for whom the existence of probability-like numbers in the density matrix is enough. (The flaw of this perspective is that you need these numbers to appear in your ontology as the relative frequencies of something, because that's what they are in reality.)
I was quite certain that Wallace et al (Oxfordians) dismissed pure WF realism in favour of state space realism when attempting to make it relativistic?
I'm assuming this whole conversation is about non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
But obviously reality is not about non-relativistic quantum mechanics. So whenever a discussion about interpretations is brought up, I think it is dishonest to argue FOR a partial version of it that really has nothing to do with reality
Fair enough. Unfortunately, the interpretive options for QFT are still not clearly worked out. I think the idea among quantum foundations people tends to be that we first figure out the best interpretation in the relatively simpler domain of NRQM, then think about how to adapt this interpretation to meet any new challenges from QFT.
This is no doubt partly due to the fact that the formal structure of NRQM is much better systematized and understood. We basically have a satisfactory axiomatization of NRQM, but attempted axiomatizations of QFT still have many lacunae. So there's definitely a "looking for your keys under the streetlight even though you dropped them in the dark" thing going on here.
By all means! The Relativity complicates this MWI. We have different splits for different observers, since everything is not simultaneous for everyone.
Now what, if the future velocity of an observer is a result of a quantum experiment's outcome. What's very often, if not always!
MWI, the non-relativistic version is NOT real, anyway.