No interpretation is really physics. These are more in a way metaphysics. 
They are not consistent with each other and yet they are commensurate with 
quantum mechanics. This means they are auxiliary. They generally can be 
lumped into two categories, those that are ψ-epistemic and those that are 
ψ-ontic, which in some way might reflect an undecidability issue with 
quantum mechanics. Examples of these for ψ-epistemic interpretations are 
Copenhagen, GRW or objective collapse, and those that are ψ-ontic are MWI 
or the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation. 


On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 4:30:04 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> Scott Aaronson has an interesting blog entry on quantum interpretations: 
> He seems somewhat conflicted over which interpretation to believe..... 
> "Anyway, as I said, MWI is the best interpretation if we leave ourselves 
> out of the picture..... what would it be like to be maintained in a 
> coherent superposition of thinking two different thoughts A and B, and 
> then to get measured in the |A>+|B>, |A>-|B> basis? Would it even be 
> like anything? Or is there something about our consciousness that 
> depends on decoherence, irreversibility, full participation in the arrow 
> of time, not living in an enclosed little unitary box .... something 
> that we'd necessarily destroy if we tried to set up a large-scale 
> interference experiment on our own brains, or any other conscious 
> entities?" 
> I think the idea that consciousness depends on full participation in the 
> arrow of time -- namely, the irreversible formation of memories -- is 
> something that need to be taken seriously. 
> Bruce 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to