View Single Post
Oct4-11, 12:44 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
I'm not sure I would describe Bohm's or Everett's version as "naive".
They're naive in the sense that they involve/entail nonempirical fantasies.

Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
One can argue that there is nothing naive about the concepts of non-locality/non-separability or multiple universes/branches.
Or one can argue that there is. And ultimately they offer no demonstrable insights about the underlying reality that can't be inferred from standard QM.

Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
Moreover, I think the epistemic view argued for by Peres and Fuchs is, in the final analysis, also just another interpretation.
Yes, the most sophisticated one.

Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
And there's arguably even less motivation to take their interpretation any more seriously than any of the others.
I like it because I think that, despite what some might see as apparent superficiality, it's actually deeper than either the Bohmian or Everettian interpretations. I think that's why, imo, most physicists would agree with Peres' and Fuchs' take on QM, as opposed to the alternatives.

Quote Quote by bohm2 View Post
In fact, one might have less motivation because to view physics as the "science of meter reading" doesn't look particularly rewarding, I think.
Bohmians and MWIers are reading the same meters and predicting the same probabilities as standard 'uninterpreted' QMers. They're just carrying some unwarranted philosophical baggage along with that.