I How Does a Photon Pass Through a Filter Without Hidden Variables?

[PeterDonis]

they all CLAIM to give the same predictions

It's not just a matter of "claiming". All QM interpretations are interpretations of the same math (or equivalent math). Same math = same predictions.

Some models in the literature, such as the GRW stochastic collapse model, are not QM interpretations, although they might sometimes be informally thought of as such: they are different theories from QM, because they use different math (for example, GRW's stochastic collapse is different math), and thus make different predictions. Those models are in principle distinguishable from standard QM by experiment. But those aren't what is referred to in the forum guidelines by the term "QM interpretation".

 

[PeterDonis]

Moderator's note: Discussion of whether the MWI is local has been moved to a separate thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-mwi-local.1057817/

 

[martinbn]

I was referring to iste's comment, and generalizing it to anyone who might claim to adhere to the interpretation we are discussing in this thread and its close variants. You mentioned the ensemble interpretation in post #22. Yes, I would assert that ensemble interpretations are ruled out by GHZ.

This is very strong! How is it ruled out by GHZ? All interpretations say the same thing about the GHZ state and measurements on it. It is just core QM, the interpretations don't really play a role here.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would assert that ensemble interpretations are ruled out by GHZ.

We already had this discussion earlier in the thread. See in particular my post #24.

 

[PeterDonis]

All interpretations say the same thing about the GHZ state and measurements on it. It is just core QM, the interpretations don't really play a role here.

Yes, this is what I pointed out at the end of my post #24.