🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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.  The fact is, QM works
*without* "collapse" even being mentioned.  The wavefunction predicts
a certain probability distribution and (if you measure enough events)
that's the distribution you see.  The wavefunction is, therefore, a 
good *descriptive* model of the statistical behavior of QM systems.
Like all other descriptive models, it may or may not be even remotely
related to any *explanatory* theory which later arises.

The measure of reality is independent verification.  If you can't
independently verify something (not even hypothetically), then 
discussion of its existence is mysticism.  If it is verifyable,
but only hypothetically and not by present technology, then
its existence is pure speculation.  Even the supporters of
the "wavefunction collapse" interpretation are quick to state
(even proudly) that these events are not observable - not even
hypothetically.

-- 
J. Giles