Liquidrage

Super-determinism with a quasi Many Worlds interpretation.

echidna

Which to my understanding is as unprovable as the Coprenhagen Interpretation.

Arguably the MWI presents its own "Occam Unlikelihoods".

Liquidrage

Actually, there have been experiments put forth that could test the MWI. You can do an internet search as well as I for the terms. Tests are out there but haven't been performed yet.
The MWI is hard to test while the CI is untestable.

The variant I prefer is rather different from the standard view. It isn't really an interpretation and is itself testable. As I've said elsewhere, QM is currently incomplete and any attempt to create interpretations is barely above guess work.
I propably shouldn't have even used the term there but I did.

Mr. Sammi

LIQUIDRAGE : unless you believe the exchanges of photons via your little tube physically change the outcome.

Sammi : Close to my position, but I would be more subtle and use "affect" instead of change.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Answerer

Well, until an interpretation is confirmed to be proved, we should not put too much faith in them, MWI spoke of the multiverse as though it contains some sort of 'memory storage system' in which the 'past' universes will never fade away(sounds more like science fiction to me).
Anyway, besides these CI and MWI, there are many other interpretations like TI, AAI, etc, not to mentions future ones, of course. So, it is very hard to tell which interpretation is right one or even is interpretation necessary in the first place?

Friar Bellows

Here's yet another interpretation:

<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013" target="_blank">The Ithaca Interpretation</a>

Kenny

I fail to see what freewill or lack thereof has to do with it. If one, believes that the act of measurement somehow collapses the wavefunction, the question becomes, “What, exactly, constitutes a measurement?” It is possible that the manner in which the wavefunction collapses is somehow strictly and absolutely determined by some sort of non-local hidden variable theory (local hidden variable theories are ruled out experimentally by Bell’s Theorem violations), but even so, the question of what constitutes a measurement still remains. It seems from your post below, you have opted for some form of the MWI. Essentially, this interpretation skirts around the measurement problem by denying that there is any such thing as wavefunction collapse but at the cost of postulating an infinite number of unobservable realities.

An alternative interpretation, that I find interesting, is something along the lines of Roger Penrose’s “Objective Collapse Interpretation.” The idea here is that when the superposition states for a system involve a certain critical amount of energy (Penrose proposes something on the order of the Plank Mass), the wavefunction describing that system collapses. But, who really knows?

God Bless,
Kenny

Liquidrage

The infinite regression of the collapse of a wave is a conclusion of past experiments only if one assumes true free will of the observer.
In a super deterministic universe the wave knows exactly when and how it will collapse and carries only as much information as it needs to collapse.


On a side note, I've already clarified that I prefer not to use any interpretation and wish I had worded that differently. Though what I was referring was the process relationship model proposed by Lee Smolin which actually does have a collapse of the wave.

Mr. Sammi

I would like to add that QM operates in its own microscopic world. An analogy I would use here is an envelope.

It seems speculatively QM operates akin to a sealed envelope. It seems we may have these sealed envelopes stuck together creating the larger building blocks. An so on and so on, until it envelopes YOU and ME.

When we pry at the envelope, the seal opens and we look at an open envelope, which is not the same as a direct peek at a closed envelope.

In fact it seems QM is "a look at an open envelope". When envelopes are opened, they are exposed to their surroundings and thus would seemingly not behave the same as a closed envelope.

The next step of QM would be to try and evaluate the behaviour of sealed envelopes AS they interact with other envelopes.

Sammi Na Boodie ()