On 30 Aug 2009, at 07:06, marc.geddes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Aug 30, 12:22 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> On 29 Aug 2009, at 08:09, marc.geddes wrote:
>>
>>> Bohm's interpretation of QM is utterly precise and was published  
>>> in a
>>> scientific journal (Phys. Rev, 1952).  In the more than 50 years
>>> since, no technical rebuttal has yet been found, and it is fully
>>> consistent with all predictions of standard QM.  In fact the Bohm
>>> interpretation is the only realist interpretation offering a clear
>>> picture of what’s going on – other interpretations such as Bohr deny
>>> that there’s an objective reality at all at the microscopic level,
>>> bring in vague ideas like the importance of ‘consciousness’ or
>>> ‘observers’ and postulate mysterious ‘wave functions collapses, or
>>> reference a fantastical ‘multiverse’ of unobservables, disconnected
>>> from actual concrete reality.  Bohm is the *only* non-mystical
>>> interpretation!
>>
>> Bohm's QM is a variant of QM, which keeps the Everett many worlds,  
>> but
>> use a very unclear theory of mind, and a very unclear notion of
>> particle to make one hidden Everett branch of reality "more real"  
>> than
>> the other, and this by reintroducing non-locality in the picture, and
>> many zombies in the universal wave.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> It’s true that there is no wave function collapse in Bohm, so it uses
> the same math as Everett.  But Bohm does not interpret the wave
> function in ‘many world’ terms, in Bohm the wave function doesn’t
> represent concrete reality, its just an abstract field – the concrete
> reality is the particles, which are on a separate level of reality, so
> there are no ‘zombies’ in the wave function.

In Bohm, the wave is not an abstract field, it plays a concrete role  
in the determination of the position of the particles I can observed.  
It is not a question of interpretation, it follows form the fact that  
the wave guides the particles by simulating completely the parallel  
branches. And in those branches the person acts exactly like believing  
they are made of particles "like us".
How could we know that we belong to the branch with particles? We need  
already to abandon CTM here.




>
> The Bohm interpretation is actually the clearest of all
> interpretations.

It is not an interpretation. It is another theory. It is more sensical  
than Copenhagen, but is a regression with respect to CTM, which  
already explains why "observable reality" emerges from infinities of  
computations.



> It does away with the enormous multiverse edifice of
> unobservables,

Nature has always contained many unobservable things, multiplied in  
huge quantities, be it galaxies, before Hubble, or water molecules. It  
is the basic motto of the "everything" idea that multiplying entities  
can make our theories conceptually simpler.



> whilst at the same time maintaining a realist picture
> of reality (agrees that wave function is real and doesn’t collapse,
> whilst placing a single concrete reality on a different level).


It is a form of cosmo-solipism. We always want to be unique, but that  
is coquetry.


>
> You may like to look the volume (‘Quantum Implications’, B.J.Hiley,
> F.David Peat) for examples of how the Bohm interpretation makes
> problems which are unclear with other interpreations, very clear with
> Bohm.  Since Bohm is non-reductionist and no conclusive rebuttals have
> been found in over 50 years, it counts as evidence against the
> reductionist world-view (and thus also evidence against Bayes).
>
> Brent did make the point that it has trouble with field theory, but
> this problem is a feature of other interpretations also.  Brent also
> criticised the non-locality, but again, this problem is a feature of
> all other interpretations also.

I disagree. Everett restores locality, as he explains himself. Deutsch  
and Hayden wrote a paper explaining rather well how locality is  
completely restored in the many-worlds view.
And as I said, comp alone entails the many "worlds" (or many  
dreams, ...). That part of the SWE confirms comp. If I remember well,  
Bohm intuited this and made some case against the computationalist  
hypothesis.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to