Joao wrote: > This not quite the case. In the Bohmian interpretation the "collapse" > is, in fact, determined by the non-local quantum potential pretty > much as the outcome of a critical phase transition which suppresses > all the branches of the superposition but the one that matches the > measured outcome. This is indeed "effective" but hardly pragramatic.
The "collapse" or the "reduction" in the Bohmian theory is something obscure (to me) and - perhaps - also to the masters like Goldstein http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#cwf and Durr and Valentini and Cushing, etc. Perhaps it is the effect of the "holistic" nature of that model :-) > The Everett Interpretation is just as non-local > as QM with the peculiar distinction that it accommodates non-locality > in its peculiar way, where the unconnected "locales" are made relative > to the different branches of the wave function. Yes this is also my opinion (and D. Mermin's opinion!). But it is also true what is saying Bruno Marchal. That it to say, that we must define non-locality (non-separability, holism, etc.) first! (And I add that we must check whether non-locality is embedded in the QM formalism or not.)
