4 ms·

> The wave function is not a description of anything physical. The domain of the wave function is not physical space, it is configuration space. This is the rea

> The wave function is not a description of anything physical. The domain of the wave function is not physical space, it is configuration space. This is the reason entanglement seems weird to us, because we live in physical space and the wave function does not. This is circular: you're assuming that realism about the wave function is incorrect to argue against the (tragically misnamed) many-worlds interpretation, but the only substantive claim the MWI makes is that realism about the wave function is true.

lisper 4y ago
> you're assuming that realism about the wave function is incorrect No, I'm not assuming it. I simply observe that the SR by itself does not describe the outcomes of experiments. And I'm not even talking here about quantum experiments. The SR cannot by itself even account for the fact that we live in a three-dimensional space or that there is an arrow of time. And it certainly cannot account for the Born rule, which is also an experimentally observed fact. > the only substantive claim the MWI makes is that realism about the wave function is true. Yes, I know. The problem with this is that it is violently at odds with observations that every human makes every moment of their lives, and it does not account for the Born rule. Other than that there's no problem with it.
- hither_shores 4y ago
  > I simply observe that the SR by itself does not describe the outcomes of experiments. No formalism describes the outcome of experiments by itself. There always needs to be an interpretation attached, and our choice of interpretation is always underdetermined by observation. > The problem with this is that it is violently at odds with observations that every human makes every moment of their lives Like all other interpretations of all other physical theories, MWI isn't and can't be at odds with our observations alone, because our observations alone aren't enough to imply any particular relationship between observations in general. And like all other interpretations, it is and must be at odds with competing interpretations, and in particular with the folk-physics model we're naturally inclined to use. But this means very little, because folk-physics is wrong, and this far from the paleolithic savanna, it's wrong in ways that matter. Intuition is evidence, but it's not particularly strong evidence, and it's certainly not proof. > and it does not account for the Born rule. Sure, it still needs a separate account of subjective probability. But so does everything else: it's just a little harder to notice in the classical regime, since the relevant probabilities are always either 1 or 0.
  - lisper 4y ago
    > No formalism describes the outcome of experiments by itself. That is so wrong as to border on the ridiculous. The quantum mechanics formalism, i.e. the SE plus the BR together describe the outcomes of experiments. No interpretation is required. You just turn the crank on the math and predictions pop out. There is a reason that "shut up and calculate" is a thing. The only reason people talk about interpretations at all is that the structure of the math is violently at odds with our intuitions and subjective experience, and this leaves some people feeling queasy and wanting an explanation. There's nothing wrong with that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the power of the formalism to make predictions, which is completely independent of any interpretation. (And this is true of classical mechanics as well.)

lisper 4y ago

> you're assuming that realism about the wave function is incorrect No, I'm not assuming it. I simply observe that the SR by itself does not describe the outcomes of experiments. And I'm not even talking here about quantum experiments. The SR cannot by itself even account for the fact that we live in a three-dimensional space or that there is an arrow of time. And it certainly cannot account for the Born rule, which is also an experimentally observed fact. > the only substantive claim the MWI makes is that realism about the wave function is true. Yes, I know. The problem with this is that it is violently at odds with observations that every human makes every moment of their lives, and it does not account for the Born rule. Other than that there's no problem with it.

hither_shores 4y ago
> I simply observe that the SR by itself does not describe the outcomes of experiments. No formalism describes the outcome of experiments by itself. There always needs to be an interpretation attached, and our choice of interpretation is always underdetermined by observation. > The problem with this is that it is violently at odds with observations that every human makes every moment of their lives Like all other interpretations of all other physical theories, MWI isn't and can't be at odds with our observations alone, because our observations alone aren't enough to imply any particular relationship between observations in general. And like all other interpretations, it is and must be at odds with competing interpretations, and in particular with the folk-physics model we're naturally inclined to use. But this means very little, because folk-physics is wrong, and this far from the paleolithic savanna, it's wrong in ways that matter. Intuition is evidence, but it's not particularly strong evidence, and it's certainly not proof. > and it does not account for the Born rule. Sure, it still needs a separate account of subjective probability. But so does everything else: it's just a little harder to notice in the classical regime, since the relevant probabilities are always either 1 or 0.
- lisper 4y ago
  > No formalism describes the outcome of experiments by itself. That is so wrong as to border on the ridiculous. The quantum mechanics formalism, i.e. the SE plus the BR together describe the outcomes of experiments. No interpretation is required. You just turn the crank on the math and predictions pop out. There is a reason that "shut up and calculate" is a thing. The only reason people talk about interpretations at all is that the structure of the math is violently at odds with our intuitions and subjective experience, and this leaves some people feeling queasy and wanting an explanation. There's nothing wrong with that. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the power of the formalism to make predictions, which is completely independent of any interpretation. (And this is true of classical mechanics as well.)