4 ms·
The point is that if standard QM has a problem to make predictions, then the MWI would face the same problem to make the same predictions starting from a univer
by kgwgk 7y ago
The point is that if standard QM has a problem to make predictions, then the MWI would face the same problem to make the same predictions starting from a universal wavefunction.
If standard QM has no problem to make predictions then I agree than in principle the MWI could make the same predictions (but it seems to me that in practice it can only make predictions by using standard QM and saying that those are the same predictions that could in principle be derived).
- jhanschoo 7y agoCan you clarify what you mean by standard QM? I had taken your usage of "standard QM" to mean, as you used it in context, to be collapse interpretations, but strictly speaking standard QM just concerns itself with quantum systems and is not incompatible with MWI. Edit: it's too late to alter my original ancestor comment, but I think the way I wrote it may have yielded a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to suggest that MWI has value because it can predict phenomena. I meant to say that it has value because it is a metaphysically cleaner model of reality than the collapse interpretations.
- kgwgk 7y agoBy "standard QM" I mean the "textbook quantum mechanics" which is based in a set of postulates (like for example https://personal.utdallas.edu/~son051000/comp/postulates.pdf https://personal.utdallas.edu/~son051000/comp/postulates.pdf) including in some form von Neumann's projection postulate.