4 ms·

> Bohmian mechanics allows for quantum non-equilibrium, Yes, of course. In Bohmian mechanics, particles have actual locations, and so of course those location

by 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

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.