> On 7 Jun 2020, at 04:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/6/2020 7:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 11:29:02 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 6/6/2020 5:13 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 6:10:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>> On 5 Jun 2020, at 23:36, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ref (article by Jim Baggott): >>>> >>>> >>>> https://medium.com/@MassimoPigliucci/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1 >>>> <https://medium.com/@MassimoPigliucci/the-copenhagen-confusion-611f31cc27e1> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://twitter.com/philipcball/status/1268950876405850112 >>>> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fphilipcball%2Fstatus%2F1268950876405850112&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHyoDxbukkDIr-ioIp_UjGFzLHeIg> >>>> >>>> Jim Baggott Retweeted >>>> Philip Ball @philipcball >>>> · >>>> "The “collapse of the wavefunction” was never part of the Copenhagen >>>> interpretation because the wavefunction isn’t interpreted realistically." >>>> I have been trying to get this point across for ages; I really hope Jim >>>> has more success. >>>> >>>> Quote Tweet >>>> >>>> Jim Baggott @JimBaggott >>>> >>>> No, the Copenhagen interpretation does not entail the collapse of the >>>> wavefunction. >>> >>> Then, if I look at a spin in the 1/sqrt(2) (up + down), with a {up, down} >>> measuring device, I am myself in a superposition state, if the wave does >>> not collapse. >>> Non collapse entails many world, or better many dreams. In that case there >>> is no collapse, but also no waves needed, as it has to be explained by >>> 2+2=4 & Co. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The best comment by a physicists (Associate Professor, Monash University) >>> in the discussion thread: >>> >>> >>> The wavefunction is not a physical thing - so whether it collapses is >>> irrelevant. >>> >>> >>> At least one physicist not brainwashed into the current religion. >> >> Baggott and also Hosenfelder seem to be endorsing an epistemic >> interpretation like QBism, but they don't directly discuss the problems with >> it. >> >> Brent >> >> Can you list some of these problems? AG > > It makes the wave-function a description of personal knowledge of the system > according to the PBR theorem https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 > <https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328>
Making things epistemic is the right move (provably so with mechanism), but it does not change the “many”, except that it go from many universes (which might be rather heavy to conceive) to many subjective experiences, which is already the case in arithmetic, and is rather natural among thinking beings. The problem is that those who make the wave physically unreal”, is that they continue to think in terms of "real particles”, but that is logically incompatible with Mechanism. They go in the right direction but not far enough with respect to the mechanist constrains. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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/2b50e90e-eb6c-3910-9967-0528df18a612%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b50e90e-eb6c-3910-9967-0528df18a612%40verizon.net?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/9C348950-2AA9-4069-9B23-406B4CE85FDC%40ulb.ac.be.
