Re: Bayes Destroyed?

From: marc.geddes <>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:06:52 -0700 (PDT)

On Aug 30, 12:22 am, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2009, at 08:09, marc.geddes wrote:
> > Bohm's interpretation of QM is utterly precise and was published in a
> > scientific journal (Phys. Rev, 1952).  In the more than 50 years
> > since, no technical rebuttal has yet been found, and it is fully
> > consistent with all predictions of standard QM.  In fact the Bohm
> > interpretation is the only realist interpretation offering a clear
> > picture of what’s going on – other interpretations such as Bohr deny
> > that there’s an objective reality at all at the microscopic level,
> > bring in vague ideas like the importance of ‘consciousness’ or
> > ‘observers’ and postulate mysterious ‘wave functions collapses, or
> > reference a fantastical ‘multiverse’ of unobservables, disconnected
> > from actual concrete reality.  Bohm is the *only* non-mystical
> > interpretation!
> Bohm's QM is a variant of QM, which keeps the Everett many worlds, but  
> use a very unclear theory of mind, and a very unclear notion of  
> particle to make one hidden Everett branch of reality "more real" than  
> the other, and this by reintroducing non-locality in the picture, and  
> many zombies in the universal wave.
> Bruno

It’s true that there is no wave function collapse in Bohm, so it uses
the same math as Everett. But Bohm does not interpret the wave
function in ‘many world’ terms, in Bohm the wave function doesn’t
represent concrete reality, its just an abstract field – the concrete
reality is the particles, which are on a separate level of reality, so
there are no ‘zombies’ in the wave function.

The Bohm interpretation is actually the clearest of all
interpretations. It does away with the enormous multiverse edifice of
unobservables, whilst at the same time maintaining a realist picture
of reality (agrees that wave function is real and doesn’t collapse,
whilst placing a single concrete reality on a different level).

You may like to look the volume (‘Quantum Implications’, B.J.Hiley,
F.David Peat) for examples of how the Bohm interpretation makes
problems which are unclear with other interpreations, very clear with
Bohm. Since Bohm is non-reductionist and no conclusive rebuttals have
been found in over 50 years, it counts as evidence against the
reductionist world-view (and thus also evidence against Bayes).

Brent did make the point that it has trouble with field theory, but
this problem is a feature of other interpretations also. Brent also
criticised the non-locality, but again, this problem is a feature of
all other interpretations also.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sat Aug 29 2009 - 22:06:52 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST