4 ms·

> Correction: the same observable predictions "Observable" is redundant. A prediction in science is understood to mean a prediction about the outcome of an ex

by lisper 4y ago

> Correction: the same observable predictions "Observable" is redundant. A prediction in science is understood to mean a prediction about the outcome of an experiment, i.e. a prediction about an observation. > in the domains we've tested. No. The predictions of all QM interpretations are the same, full stop. If this were not the case we would not be having this conversation at all, we could determine which interpretation was correct by doing an experiment. (There is one exception to this, and that is GRW collapse, which predicts that there is some macroscopic scale at which systems stop exhibiting quantum behavior because of internal spontaneous collapse. But so far all experiments have falsified this.) > The axioms of every interpretation are metaphysical. No, that's not true. Bohmian positions are physical. Collapse is physical. Multiple worlds are physical. The thing that makes Bohmian foliations metaphysical is not that they are unmeasurable, it is that they are arbitrary. You cannot tell which foliation is correct even in principle.

naasking 4y ago
> If this were not the case we would not be having this conversation at all, we could determine which interpretation was correct by doing an experiment. No, that's not correct. Again, Bohmian mechanics allows for quantum non-equilibrium, but we're not yet sure how to create such a state. So it is does make observably different prediction, in principle. This prediction is just not within experimental reach at the moment. Most interpretations make equivalent predictions, but not all. Those predictions that differ are outside of domains we've tested. > No, that's not true. Bohmian positions are physical. Collapse is physical. Multiple worlds are physical. They are physical by virtue of metaphysical assertions about what does and does not exist, ie. the axioms. > The thing that makes Bohmian foliations metaphysical is not that they are unmeasurable, it is that they are arbitrary. You cannot tell which foliation is correct even in principle. A preferred foliation can be derived from the wave function in Bohmian mechanics. You can arguably do without one. Both references are cited here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10955-015-1369-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10955-015-1369-8
- lisper 4y ago
  > Bohmian mechanics allows for quantum non-equilibrium, Yes, of course. In Bohmian mechanics, particles have actual locations, and so of course those locations cannot be required to obey the Born rule except by hypothesis. But it does not follow that... > it ... does make observably different prediction, in principle > but we're not yet sure how to create such a state > This prediction is just not within experimental reach at the moment It is not just that we "don't know" how to create these non-Born states, it is that creating such a state would falsify quantum mechanics. Creating such a state would necessarily involve some physical process that violates the Schroedinger equation. No such process has ever been observed. It is possible that this could change, but it's extremely unlikely. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that such a new process, were it to ever be discovered, would have anything to do with Bohmian mechanics. It is as likely that we will discover a violation of conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics as we are to discover a violation of QM. > They are physical by virtue of metaphysical assertions about what does and does not exist, ie. the axioms. Well, yeah. The whole idea of "physical" is itself a metaphysical assertion. We could be living in a simulation. > A preferred foliation can be derived from the wave function in Bohmian mechanics. You can arguably do without one. OK, that's news to me, but I don't have time to read that paper right now. I'll put it on my reading list. [UPDATE] They want $40 to access that paper. If you want to send me a copy I'll read it, but I won't pay that much for access to one paper. Sorry.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > and there is absolutely no reason to believe Logic and epistemology seem to often take a backseat when the mind comes in close contact with the unknown. > Well, yeah. The whole idea of "physical" is itself a metaphysical assertion. We could be living in a simulation. Similarly, when it finds itself in these circumstances, it can often be observed flipping between 100% certainty and 100% uncertainty (the middle ground, the unknown, seems a "highly undesirable" place to be). On one hand, you might say this is "just people being people", but I am suspicious whether it is actually that simple. It's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness for good reason, I think.

by lisper 4y ago

naasking 4y ago

> If this were not the case we would not be having this conversation at all, we could determine which interpretation was correct by doing an experiment. No, that's not correct. Again, Bohmian mechanics allows for quantum non-equilibrium, but we're not yet sure how to create such a state. So it is does make observably different prediction, in principle. This prediction is just not within experimental reach at the moment. Most interpretations make equivalent predictions, but not all. Those predictions that differ are outside of domains we've tested. > No, that's not true. Bohmian positions are physical. Collapse is physical. Multiple worlds are physical. They are physical by virtue of metaphysical assertions about what does and does not exist, ie. the axioms. > The thing that makes Bohmian foliations metaphysical is not that they are unmeasurable, it is that they are arbitrary. You cannot tell which foliation is correct even in principle. A preferred foliation can be derived from the wave function in Bohmian mechanics. You can arguably do without one. Both references are cited here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10955-015-1369-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10955-015-1369-8

lisper 4y ago
> Bohmian mechanics allows for quantum non-equilibrium, Yes, of course. In Bohmian mechanics, particles have actual locations, and so of course those locations cannot be required to obey the Born rule except by hypothesis. But it does not follow that... > it ... does make observably different prediction, in principle > but we're not yet sure how to create such a state > This prediction is just not within experimental reach at the moment It is not just that we "don't know" how to create these non-Born states, it is that creating such a state would falsify quantum mechanics. Creating such a state would necessarily involve some physical process that violates the Schroedinger equation. No such process has ever been observed. It is possible that this could change, but it's extremely unlikely. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that such a new process, were it to ever be discovered, would have anything to do with Bohmian mechanics. It is as likely that we will discover a violation of conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics as we are to discover a violation of QM. > They are physical by virtue of metaphysical assertions about what does and does not exist, ie. the axioms. Well, yeah. The whole idea of "physical" is itself a metaphysical assertion. We could be living in a simulation. > A preferred foliation can be derived from the wave function in Bohmian mechanics. You can arguably do without one. OK, that's news to me, but I don't have time to read that paper right now. I'll put it on my reading list. [UPDATE] They want $40 to access that paper. If you want to send me a copy I'll read it, but I won't pay that much for access to one paper. Sorry.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > and there is absolutely no reason to believe Logic and epistemology seem to often take a backseat when the mind comes in close contact with the unknown. > Well, yeah. The whole idea of "physical" is itself a metaphysical assertion. We could be living in a simulation. Similarly, when it finds itself in these circumstances, it can often be observed flipping between 100% certainty and 100% uncertainty (the middle ground, the unknown, seems a "highly undesirable" place to be). On one hand, you might say this is "just people being people", but I am suspicious whether it is actually that simple. It's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness for good reason, I think.