4 ms·
> Neither Bohmian mechanics nor many worlds are falsifiable, they are just interpretations. If we accept that (I’m not sure I do[1]), then that must be true of
by loup-vaillant 2y ago
> Neither Bohmian mechanics nor many worlds are falsifiable, they are just interpretations.
If we accept that (I’m not sure I do[1]), then that must be true of all interpretations, including the once most popular, Copenhagen/collapse. And as valuable is the "shut up and calculate" refusal to interpret anything, I suspect it is at least in part a way to avoid the possible demise of the collapse interpretation. A compromise of sorts.
[1]: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DFxoaWGEh9ndwtZhk/decoherence-is-falsifiable-and-testable https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/DFxoaWGEh9ndwtZhk/decoherenc...
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoI would argue that “shut up and calculate” is correct specifically because QM is a model. What hubris it would take to believe that we’ve discovered how the universe actually works (and there’s the issue of inconsistency with GR). And since it’s just a model, it doesn’t matter what “interpretation” you pick, since all models are wrong anyway.
- loup-vaillant 2y ago> What hubris it would take to believe that we’ve discovered how the universe actually works Isn't that what happened with the interpretations that came before many worlds? Weren't most people believing in an actual wave function collapse back then, with basically no one telling them of their hubris? Genuine question: how soon did the "shut up and calculate" approach, as a refusal to interpret the maths, started getting traction?