3 ms·

> Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. What's your justification for that? I remember Arthur Eddington pointing out that it co

> Treating the wavefunction as physically real is perfectly reasonable. What's your justification for that? I remember Arthur Eddington pointing out that it could be interpreted as modeling our limited knowledge of a quantum system just as well as its 'physical reality'. But there's obviously justification for the first one, while the second one appears to be a large unjustified leap.

lmm 8y ago
> What's your justification for that? Occam's razor. The wavefunction is the simplest construct that explains our experimental results (it appears in every interpretation to some degree or another, certainly in pilot wave theory where it is the pilot wave), so it's simplest to assume it just is what's really happening. > I remember Arthur Eddington pointing out that it could be interpreted as modeling our limited knowledge of a quantum system just as well as its 'physical reality'. Hidden variable approaches are incompatible with our experimental results unless you introduce some seriously undesirable properties (e.g. nonlocality). I didn't say that wavefunction realism is the only reasonable approach, just that it's a reasonable approach. Pilot wave theory isn't - it introduces an extra layer of complexity justified by nothing more than human intuition (not even innate intuition, but the experience of classical mechanics).
- westoncb 8y ago
  > The wavefunction is the simplest construct that explains our experimental results (it appears in every interpretation), so it's simplest to assume it just is what's really happening. You are addressing a straw man. I never said anything about an alternative to wavefunctions—I brought up how they should be interpreted. Additionally, your claim, "so it's simplest to assume it just is what's really happening" has no more justification to it than the first time you said it. > Hidden variable approaches are incompatible with our experimental results ... He wasn't talking about a hidden variable theory, just about how to interpret the wavefunction, holding all theoretical elements constant: does it model our knowledge of physical states, or the physical states themselves. The first one is simpler because we already know we are observing the physical states through an intermediary and that our knowledge is limited; the second one introduces a new capability to the universe.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > I never said anything about an alternative to wavefunctions Unless you're denying that physical reality exists at all, to suggest that the wavefunction isn't physical reality is implicitly to suggest that something else is. > He wasn't talking about a hidden variable theory, just about how to interpret the wavefunction, holding all theoretical elements constant: does it model our knowledge of physical states, or the physical states themselves. If you're assuming there are "physical states themselves" that the wavefunction is merely our knowledge of, that's practically the definition of a hidden variable theory. > The first one is simpler because we already know we are observing the physical states through an intermediary and that our knowledge is limited; the second one introduces a new capability to the universe. Nonsense. Observation is an ordinary physical process that happens inside the universe; anything that "observing" can do must already be something the universe is capable of.

lmm 8y ago

> What's your justification for that? Occam's razor. The wavefunction is the simplest construct that explains our experimental results (it appears in every interpretation to some degree or another, certainly in pilot wave theory where it is the pilot wave), so it's simplest to assume it just is what's really happening. > I remember Arthur Eddington pointing out that it could be interpreted as modeling our limited knowledge of a quantum system just as well as its 'physical reality'. Hidden variable approaches are incompatible with our experimental results unless you introduce some seriously undesirable properties (e.g. nonlocality). I didn't say that wavefunction realism is the only reasonable approach, just that it's a reasonable approach. Pilot wave theory isn't - it introduces an extra layer of complexity justified by nothing more than human intuition (not even innate intuition, but the experience of classical mechanics).

westoncb 8y ago
> The wavefunction is the simplest construct that explains our experimental results (it appears in every interpretation), so it's simplest to assume it just is what's really happening. You are addressing a straw man. I never said anything about an alternative to wavefunctions—I brought up how they should be interpreted. Additionally, your claim, "so it's simplest to assume it just is what's really happening" has no more justification to it than the first time you said it. > Hidden variable approaches are incompatible with our experimental results ... He wasn't talking about a hidden variable theory, just about how to interpret the wavefunction, holding all theoretical elements constant: does it model our knowledge of physical states, or the physical states themselves. The first one is simpler because we already know we are observing the physical states through an intermediary and that our knowledge is limited; the second one introduces a new capability to the universe.
- lmm 8y ago
  > I never said anything about an alternative to wavefunctions Unless you're denying that physical reality exists at all, to suggest that the wavefunction isn't physical reality is implicitly to suggest that something else is. > He wasn't talking about a hidden variable theory, just about how to interpret the wavefunction, holding all theoretical elements constant: does it model our knowledge of physical states, or the physical states themselves. If you're assuming there are "physical states themselves" that the wavefunction is merely our knowledge of, that's practically the definition of a hidden variable theory. > The first one is simpler because we already know we are observing the physical states through an intermediary and that our knowledge is limited; the second one introduces a new capability to the universe. Nonsense. Observation is an ordinary physical process that happens inside the universe; anything that "observing" can do must already be something the universe is capable of.