On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 6:47:55 PM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > Il 4 agosto 2018 alle 23.32 [email protected] <javascript:> ha scritto: > > AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude > the wave function has only epistemic content. So I have embraced the "shut > up and calculate" interpretation of the wave function. I also see a > connection between the True Believers of the MWI, and Trump sycophants; > they seem immune to simple facts, such as the foolishness of thinking > copies of observers can occur, or be created, willy-nilly. AG > > Frankly I cannot understand, from the following famous page, whether > Schroedinger thinks the wavefunction as ontic or epistermic or both! > > Erwin Schroedinger - § 7. The psi-Function as a Catalogue of Expectations. > > Continuing with the exposition of the official teaching, let us turn to > the psi-function > mentioned above (§ 5). It is now t*he instrument for predicting the > probability of* > *measurement outcomes. It embodies the totality of theoretical future > expectations, as laid* > *down in a catalogue*. It is, at any moment in time, the bridge of > relations and restrictions > between different measurements, as were in the classical theory the model > and its state at > any given time. The psi-function has also otherwise much in common with > this classical > state. In principle, it is also uniquely determined by a finite number of > suitably chosen > measurements on the object, though half as many as in the classical > theory. Thus is the > catalogue of expectations laid down initially. From then on, it changes > with time, as in > the classical theory, in a well-defined and deterministic ("causal") way - > the development > of the psi-function is governed by a partial differential equation (of > first order in the time > variable, and resolved for dy/dt). This corresponds to the undisturbed > motion of the > model in the classical theory. *But that lasts only so long until another > measurement is* > *undertaken. After every measurement, one has to attribute to the > psi-function a curious,* > *somewhat sudden adaptation, which depends on the measurement result and > is therefore* > *unpredictable*. This alone already shows that this second type of change > of the psi-function > has nothing to do with the regular development between two measurements. > The sudden > change due to measurement is closely connected with the discussion in § 5, > and we will > consider it in depth in the following. It is the most interesting aspect > of the whole theory, > and it is precisely this aspect that requires a breach with naive realism. > For this reason, > the psi-function cannot immediately replace the model or the real thing. > And this is not > because a real thing or a model could not in principle undergo sudden > unpredictable > changes, but because from a realistic point of view, measurements are > natural phenomena > like any other, and should not by themselves cause a sudden interruption > of the regular > evolution in Nature. >
*The way I read it, he seems more worried about what has come to be called the collapse of the wf, than to the extent, if any, it is ontic, though at the end he seems denying it is "the real thing". His language is fairly obtuse; maybe caused by translation from German, or something he acquired from Bohr. AG* -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
