5 ms·
No it isn't, it's an explicit way of saying that the number of real parameters needed to specify a quantum state is exponential in the number of systems.
by hugh3 15y ago
No it isn't, it's an explicit way of saying that the number of real parameters needed to specify a quantum state is exponential in the number of systems.
- lisper 15y agoWhy do you think those are mutually exclusive? "the number of real parameters needed to specify a quantum state is exponential in the number of systems" is just a rewording of "the quantum state function is an exponentially complicated object." But when you combine that statement with the main point of the paper, namely, that this exponentially complicated object is physically real, it is not unreasonable to infer that this physically real exponentially complicated object comprises multiple copies of classical reality. In fact, there are logically only three possibilities: 1. The quantum wave function comprises zero classical realities, i.e. what we call classical reality is not real but some kind of illusion. This is actually a scientifically tenable point of view. See http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605002, particularly section VI. 2. The quantum wave function comprises one classical reality, i.e. Copenhagen. This is not any more a scientifically tenable point of view. 3. The quantum wave function comprises multiple classical realities, i.e. many-worlds is (are?) physically real. Personally, I subscribe to option 1.