MWI is a fully deterministic theory, but it is not the
only deterministic theory consistent with QM.

I believe that 't Hooft's theory is more natural from the point of view that
universes are programs. It is hard for me to understand how you get
interference between ``nearby´´ universes or programs. According to 't Hooft
QM would arise in a ``single universe´´


[1] Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System

[2] Determinism in Free Bosons

[3] How Does God Play Dice? (Pre-)Determinism at the Planck Scale

[4] Quantum Mechanics and Determinism

----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: vrijdag 12 juli 2002 17:30
Onderwerp: Copenhagen interpretation

> Saibal wrote:
> >This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know
> >If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could
> >concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies that
> >elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to
> >the outcome of experiments. The real underlying theory of Nature could be
> >still be deterministic. Recently 't Hooft has shown how QM can emerge out
> >a deterministic theory. In this case QM has to be interpreted according
> >the Copenhagen interpretation.
> But QM-without-collapse *is* a fully deterministic theory.
> In QM-without-collapse the indeterminism is a first person
> indeterminism quite comparable to what appears in classical
> self-duplication process (if I may repeat myself).
> It seems to me that 't Hooft theory is very speculative,
> but then I am not sure I fully understand it, for sure.
> Bruno
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Save on REALTOR Fees
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Reply via email to