Copenhagen interpretation isn’t a theory-as-opposed-to-an-interpretation...and doesn’t claim to be. Although you could complain it isn’t saying much as an interpretation either.
Bohmian mechanics has the opposite problem: it’s definitely a theory , because it has additional mathematical structure, and it definitely has an ontology. But for all the additional complexity, it struggles to predict the full set of results. It doesnt reproduce everything that standard QM can do, and it isn’t simpler, so there is no pragmatic case for using it. But there is such a pragmatic case for using CI, interpreted correctly as the minimum set of assumptions necessary to get the results, not incorrectly as a synonym for objective collapse.
On the other hand there is no other alternative. There is no other choice that preserves probability over time.
Which probability? MWI preserves objective probability, but but MWIers still.need to disregard unobserved measurements in order to get the right subjective probabilities.
I admit that I did not word that very well. Honestly don’t know how to concisely express how much Copenhagen interpretation makes no sese at all, not even as an interpretation.
Copenhagen interpretation isn’t a theory-as-opposed-to-an-interpretation...and doesn’t claim to be. Although you could complain it isn’t saying much as an interpretation either.
Bohmian mechanics has the opposite problem: it’s definitely a theory , because it has additional mathematical structure, and it definitely has an ontology. But for all the additional complexity, it struggles to predict the full set of results. It doesnt reproduce everything that standard QM can do, and it isn’t simpler, so there is no pragmatic case for using it. But there is such a pragmatic case for using CI, interpreted correctly as the minimum set of assumptions necessary to get the results, not incorrectly as a synonym for objective collapse.
Which probability? MWI preserves objective probability, but but MWIers still.need to disregard unobserved measurements in order to get the right subjective probabilities.
I admit that I did not word that very well. Honestly don’t know how to concisely express how much Copenhagen interpretation makes no sese at all, not even as an interpretation.
You could express it non-concisely.
Not with out spending more time than I want on this. Sorry.