Re: Bayes Destroyed?

From: marc.geddes <>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:12:00 -0700 (PDT)

On Aug 30, 7:23 pm, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2009, at 07:06, marc.geddes wrote:

> > 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.
> In Bohm, the wave is not an abstract field, it plays a concrete role  
> in the determination of the position of the particles I can observed.  
> It is not a question of interpretation, it follows form the fact that  
> the wave guides the particles by simulating completely the parallel  
> branches. And in those branches the person acts exactly like believing  
> they are made of particles "like us".
> How could we know that we belong to the branch with particles? We need  
> already to abandon CTM here.

Yes, in Bohm the wave is 'real' , but to interpret the wave as
actually referring to ordinary concrete things is already to
presuppose 'many worlds' ; reality has two levels, so really there's
two different definitions of 'real' in Bohm. There are no 'people' in
the wave, its a more abstrast entity than ordinary concrete reality.

> > 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.
> I disagree. Everett restores locality, as he explains himself. Deutsch  
> and Hayden wrote a paper explaining rather well how locality is  
> completely restored in the many-worlds view.
> And as I said, comp alone entails the many "worlds" (or many  
> dreams, ...). That part of the SWE confirms comp. If I remember well,  
> Bohm intuited this and made some case against the computationalist  
> hypothesis.
> Bruno

If MWI does eliminate non-locality, that would be a strong point in
its favor, but is there any conclusive paper demonstrating that its
done this? I have not heard of one - I assume the Deutsch/Hayden
paper is just their attempt to restore locality which does not

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 Sun Aug 30 2009 - 01:12:00 PDT

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