It doesn’t make any predictions that are not made by the maths, so it can’t be correct or incorrect.
It makes the null prediction that the standard laws of QM apply in all situations, as opposed at least to collapse interpretations, which predict that some systems that should stay coherent won’t; this is getting more testable every day.
Oh, OK. But I thought that no-one actually believed in collapse interpretations any more? Anyway, if you take the “collapse” interpretation of QM, that’s a different mathematical theory, not merely a different interpretation pf the same maths.
Seriously, is there anyone left who actually believes in collapse any more?
Anyway, if you take the “collapse” interpretation of QM, that’s a different mathematical theory, not merely a different interpretation pf the same maths.
Good catch.
Seriously, is there anyone left who actually believes in collapse any more?
Roger Penrose, at least (and he believes it for physical reasons, not because of his philosophy of mind).
Collapse actually looks better to me than anything else that’s not MWI, though I haven’t studied the issue in much depth – I don’t understand what any interpretations besides MWI, collapse, and Bohm/hidden-variables are even saying ontologically, and Bohm has serious zombie problems.
It makes the null prediction that the standard laws of QM apply in all situations, as opposed at least to collapse interpretations, which predict that some systems that should stay coherent won’t; this is getting more testable every day.
Oh, OK. But I thought that no-one actually believed in collapse interpretations any more? Anyway, if you take the “collapse” interpretation of QM, that’s a different mathematical theory, not merely a different interpretation pf the same maths.
Seriously, is there anyone left who actually believes in collapse any more?
Good catch.
Roger Penrose, at least (and he believes it for physical reasons, not because of his philosophy of mind).
Collapse actually looks better to me than anything else that’s not MWI, though I haven’t studied the issue in much depth – I don’t understand what any interpretations besides MWI, collapse, and Bohm/hidden-variables are even saying ontologically, and Bohm has serious zombie problems.
They all seem to reduce to many worlds, hidden variables, collapse, or gibberish.
As Mike Price of the MWI FAQ liked to say, “Bohm+Ockham=Everett”.