On Monday, July 29, 2019 at 5:47:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Jul 2019, at 03:03, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Sunday, July 28, 2019 at 5:22:39 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >> >> I am suspecting that someone who works with Hilbert space, might see >> themselves as Hugh Everett friendly? Throw in Bryce DeWitt and John A. >> Wheeler too. >> >> > I am fairly agnostic about quantum interpretations. They are auxiliary > postulates or physical axioms that appear to have no falsifiable content. > > > > Everett does not talk about interpretation, but about a new formulation, > or new theory. That new theory which is the old Copenhagen one, but with > the postulate collapse deleted. > > I agree, this are different theories, before suggesting different type of > interpretation (differing along the lines dividing monism (Everett) and > dualist (Copenhagen). > > Everett ides is the idea that a physicist obey to quantum mechanics too. > Eventually this lead to a “relative state interpretation” of the same kind > of the “relative computational state” in arithmetic. > > With mechanism, quantum mechanics is how the digital number reality looks > from inside,by machines which are supported by infinitely many computations > (which are relatively executed in virtue of pure number theoretical > relations (indeed the so called sigma_1). > > Everett eliminates the wave collapse postulate, but with mechanism, the > wave itself is eliminated, and must be recovered through the geometry and > topology associated with the material/observable modes of the universal > machine (those given by Theaetetus and variants applied to Gödel’s > beweisbar (provability) postulate. That gives already the quantum logics > needed where they were expected). Quantum mechanics becomes a “theorem” in > the universal machine's theory of consciousness and matter. > > Bruno >
MWI is a quantum interpretation because it makes an ontological statement on the nature of the wave function. Quantum mechanics by itself makes no inference on the existential nature of ψ. The MWI is ψ-ontological, which means it requires the wave function to be ontic or real. By way of contrast the Bohr interpretation is ψ-epistemic, which is to say the ψ is just an epistemological entity used to compute experimental outcomes; it has no reality. LC -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a874a2b6-2269-4a0e-b0bc-d2f418a2e4b6%40googlegroups.com.
