3 ms·

I view most people who profess a belief in the Copenhagen interpretation to be expressing a belief in what the role of science is: to predict experiments. Give

I view most people who profess a belief in the Copenhagen interpretation to be expressing a belief in what the role of science is: to predict experiments. Give me an experiment and using the math of QM, I can predict the result of that experiment and everything else is just metaphysics. I can understand that perspective. But once you start trying to really tease apart the potentially metaphysical question of "what's actually happening?" (a question many people believe is just not within the realm of falsifiability/science), traditional collapse theories have a bunch of trouble setting up clear lines of what macroscopic is, how collapse actually occurs, etc. that do not seem to have easy resolutions, especially as we can create bigger and bigger quantum systems.

pdonis 2y ago
> traditional collapse theories have a bunch of trouble setting up clear lines of what macroscopic is, how collapse actually occurs, etc. that do not seem to have easy resolutions All of this is true. But none of it makes it "obvious" that the Schrodinger equation must always be exactly correct and that one should be "dumbfounded" (your word) that any interpretation (like Copenhagen) that says otherwise has any proponents at all. Yes, "collapse" is an obvious open question that hasn't been resolved. But the belief that some way of resolving it will eventually be found that doesn't require accepting the MWI is a perfectly reasonable belief to hold, and an interpretation like Copenhagen is a perfectly reasonable interpretation for people to use in the interim while we search for such a resolution.