From: julio@diegidio.name   
      
   On Wednesday, 7 September 2022 at 13:35:50 UTC+2, richali...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 12:03:11 AM UTC-5, ju...@diegidio.name wrote:   
   > > On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 19:54:28 UTC+2, richali...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > > > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 7:15:37 PM UTC-5, ju...@diegidio.name   
   wrote:   
      
      
   > > > but the wave function calculated is not real.   
   >   
   > > That *depends* on your ontological stance: and your choice,   
   > > which is the standard one, is the one that is *most* problematic.   
   >   
   > This clarifies a difference of opinion between us. I don't understand   
   > why you say that is *most* problematic? Can you elaborate? I'm   
   > curious.   
      
   For the reasons I have hinted at upthread: 1) saying "the wave function   
   is not real" means a plain hole in a theory's ontology (you may think our   
   physical theories are full of these "holes": they aren't, and the problem   
   here is in fact quite serious), and in this respect the standard interpretation   
   is the weakest of the lot, i.e. as compared to pilot-wave theory or even   
   many-worlds ("multiverses"); 2) "collapse" of the wave function is indeed   
   an externally added postulate that simply has no place in any physical   
   theory proper (under the least-action over a state space paradigm that is);   
   and, 3) with collapse we break "reversibility", which is really the nail in the   
   coffin as far as that theory is concerned.  So... "shut up and calculate."   
      
   Indeed, note that many-worlds was born exactly as an attempt to solve   
   the problems of the standard interpretation: there is no "collapse" but   
   rather "branching" in many-worlds, and, while ontologically that remains   
   quite unjustified (as long as there is no way to probe the existence of   
   these branches), it at least saves reversibility.   
      
   While, as for pilot wave theory, that is fine ontologically and otherwise,   
   indeed (as I get it) it is the best quantum theory we could have, but it's   
   simply been "cancelled".  Sure, it's dualistic, just as in Yin and Yang...   
   but this is another story.   
      
   > For what it is worth, I distinguish the physics of QM from the math of   
   > QM. The math is a model of our understanding that may be imperfect. I   
   > believe there is a reality where the actual physics happens.   
      
   No, you are quite not precise enough.  Physics already *per se* has two   
   dimensions, theoretical and applicative (experimental), where the   
   theoretical part is where you find the (physical!) models: and the more   
   we probe into realms that we cannot directly experience, the more the   
   theoretical part becomes relevant and needs to be solid.  As for maths,   
   that is simply a tool, it provides a formal language and algebra, but that's   
   all about it, it certainly does not dictate anything properly physical.   
      
   That said, the belief you express above I agree with (how couldn't I), but   
   now you are getting into the properly philosophical issue of what one   
   believes about cosmos: physics per se just needs a solid ontology and   
   then it is proper physics, whether or not the whole cosmos is somebody's   
   dream or else... but this too is another story and only marginal to our topic.   
      
   > Seriously, isn't collapse a part of reality, or required by reality?   
      
   Nope, "collapse" is a postulate and then a requirement of *that   
   theory* to somehow manage to use it at all.  Conversely, the fact that   
   we "measure things" does not per se entail the need for "collapse".   
      
   > For example, back to the photon detected in the two slit experiment,   
   > once the photon is detected there is now a new reality that differs from   
   > the previous wave function.   
      
   You are being *very* imprecise there.  Indeed this is my last reply in this   
   thread: at this point I think if you want more or even just more confirmation,   
   you should rather start looking into some course material...   
      
   > It sounds like you may follow the many worlds concept.   
      
   I thought I had to made clear that I am quite unhappy about that, too.   
      
   > Thanks Julio for responding, this is clarifying these ideas for me.   
      
   Fascinating topics.  Best luck to you,   
      
   Julio   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)