[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On May 9, 5:57 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> How can Everett's "every possibility is realized" be logically compatible
>> with Bohm's "there's only one, deterministic outcome", we just don't know
>> which one" and Griffith's "it's a probabilistic theory so some things happen
>> and some don't". I can hardly imagine less compatible interpretations of
>> the same mathematics. I could add Cramer's transactional interpretation and
>> Feynmann's zig-zag in time interpretation. Are all those maps or
> Well of course the ontological details are indeed quite incompatible.
> The status of QM is still very much 'in the air' at the moment, so we
> don't yet know with any degree of certainty. But that can (and
> should) change once both theory and observation progresses in the
And will reality change too - or is reality different from theories that
> But most of these interpretations do use some similiar concepts. As I
> mentioned, the idea of some sort of 'wave of possibilities' for
> instance. Even Bohm's 'only one outcome' still uses the wave concept
> (the guiding 'pilot wave'). So it's not as if 'anything goes',
> ontologically speaking. Progress is being made.
>>> Further, all of them actually use some of the
>>> same concepts they just ascribe different ontological status to them.
>>> On the wiki:
>>> Of course it wouldn't be surprising if QM were modified in the
>>> future. But all interpretations make use of something like a 'wave of
>>> possibilities', by the Alain Aspect experiements, it's known that
>>> future theories would have to have either non-locality or
>>> indeterminism. And there are other general empirically established
>>> features of QM that would have to remain the same.
>> Of course every physicist from Newton to Einstein would have said there are
>> generally empirically established features of mechanics like locality,
>> determinism, independence of momentum and position variables, and flow in
>> phase space that must remain the same.
>> Brent Meeker-
> The example I gave of the Alain Aspect experiments (testing Bell
> inequality) did point to proof of some quite specific features -
> according to these experiments, all future theories replacing QM would
> have to have either indeterminism
> or non-locality. So progress is made...
But according to your "map=territory" philosophy all these incompatible
theories exist physically. What does that mean? All but one of them must
describe some other universe and we just don't know which ones? Or do you mean
they "exist physically" as representational tokens in the brains of physicists?
They certainly don't exist like tables and chairs.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at