🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep28.202508.17001@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
|> [...]
|> 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.

It is not possible to distinguish between wavefunctions that are
hypothetical entities and  wavefunctions which are real objects.
Not empirically.  Therefore, their introduction violates Occam's
razor.  A wavefunction is easily determined to be a mathematical
abstraction which computes probability distributions.  I'm happy
that they remain only that.   `Collapse' cannot be determined to 
happen at all!  Since the wavefunction computes *distributions*, 
it applies to large numbers of events, not to individual ones.

-- 
J. Giles