🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep29.170356.13002@newshost.lanl.gov> 
jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|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. 

In article <1992Oct2.013142.25298@unixg.ubc.ca>, 
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
| How do you distinguish between "hypothetical entities" and "real
| objects" in any other case?

In article <1992Oct2.193606.995@newshost.lanl.gov> 
jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|If you can show me an experiment which can be (at least hypothetically)
|performed which yields a different result if "wavefunction collapse"
|is reified than it does if it is not even mentioned, then I'll consider
|the question of the existence of such an event.

This is not what I asked. I was asking a more basic question: if you,
sometimes, distinguish between "hypothetical entities" and "real
objects", then how do you do it at all?  Most of us regard at least
some of the entities in physics as "real objects". Why? Look at cases
other than that of "wave functions", and explain what the difference
is. For example, in what way are you saying quantum waves are
different from atoms or chairs or tables, which most of us regard as
"real" in the ordinary sense of the word?

If you're not claiming any difference, then you should admit that you
are arguing for treating ALL objects as "hypothetical" (which can be a
perfectly respectable philosophy, by the way, a form of
"phenomenalism"), and not claim it as something special about quantum
mechanics. Where does "reification" "yield a different result" at all?

>  The fact is, QM works
>*without* "collapse" even being mentioned.

The question of "wave collapse" is not the one I was asking about. In
the bit I quoted first, you only mentioned the wave (functions). You
can do away with "collapse", but failing to mention the waves
themselves at all is somewhat trickier, isn't it, eh?

I do have some sympathy with abolishing "collapse", as one does in the
"Many Worlds" interpretation, given that the theory works without it,
and there seems to be no non-arbitrary point at which to say that the
"collapse" has occurred. But that is different from abolishing mention
of waves entirely.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca