On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:08:31 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 11:53 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > Gerard ’t Hooft on the future of quantum mechanics > https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20170711a/full/ > > T HOOFT: I do not believe that we have to live with the many-worlds > interpretation. Indeed, it would be a stupendous number of parallel worlds, > which are only there because physicists couldn’t decide which of them is > real. > > In practice, quantum mechanics merely gives predictions with probabilities > attached. This should be considered as a normal and quite acceptable > feature of predictions made by science: different possible outcomes with > different probabilities. In the world that is familiar to us, we always > have such a situation when we make predictions. > > > That's the position of Roland Omnes'. He says QM is a probabilistic > theory, so it predicts probabilities. What did we expect? > > > Thus the question remains: What is the reality described by quantum > theories? I claim that we can attribute the fact that our predictions come > with probability distributions to the fact that not all relevant data for > the predictions are known to us, in particular important features of the > initial state. > > > The trouble with that is it's a hidden variable theory, so it has to be > non-local. That leads to t'Hooft's super-determinism. > > Brent >
There is a "stochastic processes / probability theory" for QM experimental observations, but it is of an "extended" kind, e.g. *Quantum Mechanical versus Stochastic Processes in Path Integration* https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00510 *By using path integrals, the stochastic process associated to the time evolution of the quantum probability density is formally rewritten in terms of a stochastic differential equation, given by Newton's equation of motion with an additional multiplicative stochastic force. However, the term playing the role of the stochastic force is defined by a non-positive-definite probability functional, providing a clear example of the negative* (or "extended") probabilities characteristic of quantum mechanics.* * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_probability https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4767 cf. *Quantum Dynamics without the Wave Function* - https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610204 @philipthrift Sean Carroll and Gerard ’t Hooft are probability (extended or not) eliminativists. MWI is really a superdeterministic theory. Every branch in the MW branching - if followed - is deterministic. @philipthrift -- 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/7c6e9f92-f6d8-42c2-96f6-bcebbc3d51ff%40googlegroups.com.
