You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.
But MWi looks huge compared to RQM: it reifies basis, which is much more naturally explained as a choice by an observer, ie a "map" feature.
There are a number of kinds and grades of non-realism. Objective collapse theories reify both state and collapse,
MWI refies state only and RQM refies neither. Nonethless, it is not a completely anti-realist theory.
Comment author:MrMind
17 October 2016 08:09:21AM
0 points
[-]
As far as I know, RQM is not even a complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the original paper by Rovelli, there are many holes left which I thought nobody has patched yet. If you know of an exposition that corrects those problems, I would gladly read it.
Comment author:MrMind
19 October 2016 03:35:09PM
0 points
[-]
You have to value elegance more than correctedness, though.
I'm not say that RQM is incorrect, but I am saying that until it's completed, nobody can tell if it's correct.
Also, nobody can guarantee that when completed it won't carry more weight than neoEverett.
I'm not putting g a 100%..sorry, 99,99999% weighting on RQM. But its very existence undermines EYs argument for MWI,because it suggests third alternatives to a number of alleged either/or dichotomies
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (32)
But MWi looks huge compared to RQM: it reifies basis, which is much more naturally explained as a choice by an observer, ie a "map" feature.
There are a number of kinds and grades of non-realism. Objective collapse theories reify both state and collapse, MWI refies state only and RQM refies neither. Nonethless, it is not a completely anti-realist theory.
As far as I know, RQM is not even a complete interpretation of quantum mechanics. In the original paper by Rovelli, there are many holes left which I thought nobody has patched yet. If you know of an exposition that corrects those problems, I would gladly read it.
An incomplete interpretation that is in the right lines may be better than a complete one that is not.
You have to value elegance more than correctedness, though.
I'm not say that RQM is incorrect, but I am saying that until it's completed, nobody can tell if it's correct.
Also, nobody can guarantee that when completed it won't carry more weight than neoEverett.
I'm not putting g a 100%..sorry, 99,99999% weighting on RQM. But its very existence undermines EYs argument for MWI,because it suggests third alternatives to a number of alleged either/or dichotomies