3 ms·

Even if they have no observable differences, they still make different metaphysical claims. If I see Schrödinger's cat alive, many world claims that there actua

Even if they have no observable differences, they still make different metaphysical claims. If I see Schrödinger's cat alive, many world claims that there actually also exists a dead cat while Copenhagen claims that there is only one alive cat. You may argue that the differences are irrelevant for all practical purposes but you don't get to claim that there are no differences between different interpretations.

joe_the_user 5y ago
You may argue that the differences are irrelevant for all practical purposes but you don't get to claim that there are no differences between different interpretations. It depends what one considers "significant differences". If I go from caring about the practical implications of an interpretation to some other implications, I could make all sorts of distinctions. Explanation X might be written in French and explanation Y might be written in Spanish. Even if one is a translation of the other, you could say they're different in various ways. Or maybe one explanation contains swear words and makes the reader feel bad and so the reader might not "like" that explanation. But my point above is more specific. Since the two interpretations have the same practical implications, a practical prediction can't really "need" one interpretation - the other interpretation gives you the result. This is the point about all the hidden objects/states explanations have classical analogues. And if we're getting metaphysical, Copenhagen doesn't say live cat or dead cat but says superimposed state.
- danbruc 5y ago
  If you are only worried about analyzing a specific quantum system, then yes, for most part the interpretation does probably not matter. But I think in general the differences are very important, especially as we do not understand quantum mechanics and different interpretations will direct future research in different directions. If you believe in Copenhagen, you will try to figure out how to reconcile unitary evolution with wave function collapse. If you believe in Bohmian mechanics, you will think about the quantum equilibrium hypothesis. If you believe in many worlds, you might be thinking about energy conservation.
  - joe_the_user 5y ago
    If you believe in Copenhagen, you will try to figure out how to reconcile unitary evolution with wave function collapse. This is saying the interpretations "exist". The interpretation like intermediate values in some calculation process that are never returned. If the interpretations are true, they can be seen, not just "locally". It seems like a lot of this basically involves people who've "suspended disbelief" provisionally, accepted a violation of their intuition provisionally but still are hankering for their intuition to spring back into validity. It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause that's what a fundamental reality feels like to them.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      I am not really sure what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the difference between an interpretation as a way of thinking about something and an interpretation as describing what something really is? It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause that's what a fundamental reality feels like to them. General relativity works just fine without an embedding space but there still could be one. Not that you should think about it in this way without good reasons but only because it is more intuitive. But in the case of quantum mechanics we do - at least that is what I think - understand things so poorly that it is hard to judge what one should reasonably consider while making contact with questions about the fundamental nature of things.
      - joe_the_user 5y ago
        "Interpretation", in the way that Copenhagen and Many-worlds are called interpretation, is just a way to add human meaning to an existing formalism. Like adding the label "energy" whatever quantity in Newtonian mechanics.
        5y ago

joe_the_user 5y ago

You may argue that the differences are irrelevant for all practical purposes but you don't get to claim that there are no differences between different interpretations. It depends what one considers "significant differences". If I go from caring about the practical implications of an interpretation to some other implications, I could make all sorts of distinctions. Explanation X might be written in French and explanation Y might be written in Spanish. Even if one is a translation of the other, you could say they're different in various ways. Or maybe one explanation contains swear words and makes the reader feel bad and so the reader might not "like" that explanation. But my point above is more specific. Since the two interpretations have the same practical implications, a practical prediction can't really "need" one interpretation - the other interpretation gives you the result. This is the point about all the hidden objects/states explanations have classical analogues. And if we're getting metaphysical, Copenhagen doesn't say live cat or dead cat but says superimposed state.

danbruc 5y ago
If you are only worried about analyzing a specific quantum system, then yes, for most part the interpretation does probably not matter. But I think in general the differences are very important, especially as we do not understand quantum mechanics and different interpretations will direct future research in different directions. If you believe in Copenhagen, you will try to figure out how to reconcile unitary evolution with wave function collapse. If you believe in Bohmian mechanics, you will think about the quantum equilibrium hypothesis. If you believe in many worlds, you might be thinking about energy conservation.
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  If you believe in Copenhagen, you will try to figure out how to reconcile unitary evolution with wave function collapse. This is saying the interpretations "exist". The interpretation like intermediate values in some calculation process that are never returned. If the interpretations are true, they can be seen, not just "locally". It seems like a lot of this basically involves people who've "suspended disbelief" provisionally, accepted a violation of their intuition provisionally but still are hankering for their intuition to spring back into validity. It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause that's what a fundamental reality feels like to them.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    I am not really sure what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the difference between an interpretation as a way of thinking about something and an interpretation as describing what something really is? It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause that's what a fundamental reality feels like to them. General relativity works just fine without an embedding space but there still could be one. Not that you should think about it in this way without good reasons but only because it is more intuitive. But in the case of quantum mechanics we do - at least that is what I think - understand things so poorly that it is hard to judge what one should reasonably consider while making contact with questions about the fundamental nature of things.
    - joe_the_user 5y ago
      "Interpretation", in the way that Copenhagen and Many-worlds are called interpretation, is just a way to add human meaning to an existing formalism. Like adding the label "energy" whatever quantity in Newtonian mechanics.
      - 5y ago