> On 14 Sep 2019, at 20:53, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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/ >> <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?
Some realm on which those probabilities can make sense. > > >> 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. Indeed. > > 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 <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 > <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. I don’t think so. QM, like Mechanism is deterministic, and in the case of QM, the many-world is all you need to avoid super-determinism (which is close to non sense to me). Bruno > > @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] > <mailto:[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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7c6e9f92-f6d8-42c2-96f6-bcebbc3d51ff%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/F03F9FA3-F529-499B-87EA-C27BCE260B2D%40ulb.ac.be.
