3 ms·
I think Deutsch would say there isn't actually a wave-particle duality. That's just an obfuscation that doesn't have any reality to it. Many-worlds has a much
by ridewinter 9y ago
I think Deutsch would say there isn't actually a wave-particle duality. That's just an obfuscation that doesn't have any reality to it. Many-worlds has a much simpler explanation - there is simply a particle that interacts with particles in parallel universes that produce a wave-like interference effect.
- mikeash 9y agoHe might say that, but so what? It's clear that he favors many-worlds, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to. My point is that he's attempting to prove many-worlds by assuming that none of the other explanations are true, i.e. he's begging the question.
- ridewinter 9y agoWell the other explanations say that the atom doesn't really exist, it's just an abstraction. And many-worlds says the atom does exist, and this is why you see these quantum effects. That's a meaningful difference.
- mikeash 9y agoI'm pretty sure that's not what the other explanations say at all.
- BoiledCabbage 9y agoPilot Wave is to Many Worlds, as Many Worlds is to Copenhagen. Pilot wave is the most "concrete". If you're moving away from abstraction, then why stop at Many Worlds?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- euyyn 9y agoI think you can just dispose of the concept of particle and everything works fine as waves (with discrete levels where the boundary conditions force so, and with collapse when coupled to a macroscopic system that restricts the possible states).
- eridius 9y agoHow is "a particle that interacts with particles in parallel universes" any simpler? That sounds like a crazy special rule. Why and how do individual photons/particles interact with parallel universes when nothing else can do so? Honestly, MWI sounds to me like just a fancy way of saying "magic".