🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep25.184834.13257@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
)In article <1992Sep23.153640.4394@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu
)(Robert Firth) writes:
)
)|>  [...]                                                 maybe it is
)|> best if I try to set out my own position as clearly as possible,
)|> and that position is that the "instantaneous collapse of the wave
)|> function" is well defined within quantum mechanics, and its meaning
)|> is clear from the formalism.
)
)The fact that something is well defined or has meaning *within*
)a formal system does not imply that is has *physical* reality.
)Only consequences which can be independently verified can demonstrate
)the reality of anything.  It is not empirically possible to 
)distinguish between "wavefunctions are *real* and collapse" and
)the statement "wavefunctions are mathematical abstractions from
)which distributions can be calculated".

But it is possible to distinguish between theories where wavefunctions
are hypothetical entities that collapse 'at the speed of light' (aka 'in a
lorentz invariant manner), and wavefunctions are hypothetical entities that
collapse 'instantaneously' - or some of the other equivalent alternatives
that may not involve collapse.

Von Neuman (sp?) was wrong about all collapse theories being equivalent, as
Bell has shown.