To put it differently, why do almost all think that Einstein (inherent determinism) was wrong and Bohr (inherent probability) was right? — Prishon
Call these strategies "change the philosophy" and "change the physics", respectively.
Famous examples of the change-the-philosophy strategy are the original Copenhagen interpretation, as espoused by Niels Bohr, and its various more-or-less operationalist descendents. Many physicists are attracted to this strategy: they recognise the virtues of leaving quantum mechanics — a profoundly successful scientific theory — unmodified at the mathematical level. Few philosophers share the attraction: mostly they see the philosophical difficulties of the strategy as prohibitive. In particular, attempts to promote terms like “observer” or “measurement” to some privileged position in the formulation of a scientific theory are widely held to have proved untenable.
Famous examples of the change-the-physics strategy are de Broglie and Bohm’s pilot-wave hidden variable theory, and Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber’s dynamical-collapse theory (see the discussions in chapters X and X of the current volume). Many philosophers are attracted to this strategy: they recognise the virtue of holding on to our standard picture of scientific theories as representations of an objective reality. Few physicists share the attraction: mostly they see the scientific difficulties of the strategy as prohibitive. In particular, the task of constructing alternative theories which can reproduce the empirical successes not just of non-relativistic particle mechanics but of Lorentz-covariant quantum field theory has proved extremely challenging.[5] — The Everett Interpretation - David Wallace, 2010
other undesirable features — Andrew M
Why are these undesirebale? — DeScheleSchilder
Isn't the unitarity problem, in the MWI, shifted to the branching points? — DeScheleSchilder
What is the unitarity problem? — Andrew M
I mean the non-unitary collapse of the wave function. — DeScheleSchilder
The MWI of Everett does away with this. But at the points where a split into two worlds finds place, it seems that a comparable thing to collapse happens. — DeScheleSchilder
Bell constrains but not forbids. There even has been proposed an experiment to distiguish between pure, clean chance and dterminism. — DeScheleSchilder
To put it differently, why do almost all think that Einstein (inherent determinism) was wrong and Bohr (inherent probability) was right? — Prishon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.