Re: Copenhagen interpretation

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:43:10 +0200

At 11:22 +0100 18/07/2002, Alan Forrester wrote:
> > Saibal Mitra wrote:
>In short, the CI requires the complete destruction of the two most
>> > fundamental of the two most fundamental theories (it also destroys QM
>> > because the whole point is to eliminate the only interpretation of QM
>> that
>> > provides a satisfactory explanation fo QM phenomena, the MWI) of 20th
>> > century physics, what does it offer to off-set this overwhelming
>> > disadvantage?
>>
>> It offers the ultimate laws of physics. Note that the MWI doesn't provide
>> an
>> explanation of QM phenomena at all, as MWI is itself QM (minus collapse).
>
Alan Forrester:

>A gross oversimplification. That would be like DeWitt's
> statement that QM
>provides its own interpretation, which is obviously wrong because of the
>dog's dinner that has been made (and continues to be made, by t'Hooft among
>others) of interpreting QM.


With comp (like in FOR!), I think there is a way to make sense of DeWitt's
statement that QM provides its own interpretation, in the sense that
the interpretation will be "mind constructs" in the memory of
consistent self-anticipating proving machines.
I think also that Everett means by interpretation only the "statistical
collapse" as viewed by the observers obeying SWE. He showed that the average
machine recover the quantum statistics. By taking comp more seriously and
by modelizing the observer by something a little more sophisticate than a
memory machine (for exemple a self-anticipating proving machine) a bigger
part of the machine's consistent interpretation can be extracted
in principle from the SWE. And even without, but it is not my point
here ;-)

Bruno
Received on Fri Jul 19 2002 - 08:44:07 PDT