🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mcirvin.717525788@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>
>>I've only skimmed through it, but it sounds like a fun idea. Basically an
>>emitter sends out an "offer wave" in both time directions, [...]
>
> I suspect that it's logically equivalent to a Copenhagen-
>style view, though.

Cramer himself has said (both in publication and in email) that his
interpretation is currently equivalent, since there is no testable
prediction made by either interpretation which could select one or the
other (which of course is why they are are still "interpretations" rather
than a direct part of a QM theory).

However, since the interpretation of QM is what excites the greatest amount
of philosophical speculation and excitement and unease, I think
that offering a completely different interpretation like this is of
considerable value, and as a matter of esthetics, I personally prefer
it to Copenhagen.

Also I admit to harboring hopes that a prediction might eventually be
squeezed out of his interpretation.

>When you measure some observable, you select out
>a final state that can be traced backward to some portion of the initial
>state; that seems to me to be no different from the "confirmation wave" and
>its forward-in-time transactional consequences.

But consider EPR and Bell's Inequality. Some clever person might yet
find a subtle difference.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt	Preferred: doug@netcom.com   (or: doug@eris.berkeley.edu)
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow