2 ms·

> 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 alwa

> 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

> 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.)