Popper/Lande interpretation of QM

[kote]

See for example: What you always wanted to know about Bohmian mechanics but were afraid to ask.

Thanks for the link. Interesting article. It looks consistent to me, and I appreciate the quote by a philosopher :). I find it especially interesting that this description of BI avoids the falsified causal implications of classical properties by simply denying the existence of any classical properties with causal implications.

"Just as psi is no classical field, the Bohmian particles are no classical particles. i.e., they are no bearers of properties other than position. ... Agreed, this is a radical departure from the classical particle concept."

Doesn't personally do it for me, but as far as I can tell it's perfectly viable and as provable as other self-consistent theories. I'll save the semantic arguments for a different forum (they aren't as interesting anyways).

 

[kote]

Not necessarily. You can easily have any two of FTL, relativity, and causality. An instantaneous action may be relativistic, in which case it would violate causality in some reference frames.

DaleSpam,

I'm glad you brought this up. It shows our differences in assumptions. I would argue that relativity and locality are synthetic propositions while causality is an analytic truth. That a cause must precede its effect is guaranteed by the definitions of the words cause and effect, putting it on the same level as 1+1=2.

A theory can still comply with the tautological truth of causality by redefining time - by redefining what it means for one event to precede another. Doing this, however, gives you a definition of time inconsistent with time in relativity.

So I have been assuming that, at least without throwing out relativity, causality must be true. Without this assumption I would agree with all of your previous statements.

 

[DrChinese]

... I would argue that relativity and locality are synthetic propositions while causality is an analytic truth. That a cause must precede its effect is guaranteed by the definitions of the words cause and effect, putting it on the same level as 1+1=2.

A theory can still comply with the tautological truth of causality by redefining time - by redefining what it means for one event to precede another...

I would agree that assuming causality is tautological. And the evidence is fully consistent with the ideas that a) there are NO causes; or b) the future influences the past.

 

[Demystifier]

Special relativity is a statement of locality. Relativity is locality.

No it isn't. If it were, then we would not have two different words for the same thing.

 

[Demystifier]

And the evidence is fully consistent with the ideas that a) there are NO causes; or b) the future influences the past.

I would say that both a) and b) are true. Let me explain.

What does it mean that A is cause of B? It means a logical relation
A -> B
i.e., A IMPLIES B.
But what if both
A -> B
and
B -> A
are true?
Should we say that then A is a cause of B and B is a cause A? I don't think so. It's better to say that the notion of cause and consequence do not have any fundamental meaning. (They have only meaning on an effective macroscopic level, due to the second "law" of thermodynamics.)

 

[DrChinese]

I would say that both a) and b) are true. Let me explain.

What does it mean that A is cause of B? It means a logical relation
A -> B
i.e., A IMPLIES B.
But what if both
A -> B
and
B -> A
are true?
Should we say that then A is a cause of B and B is a cause A? I don't think so. It's better to say that the notion of cause and consequence do not have any fundamental meaning. (They have only meaning on an effective macroscopic level, due to the second "law" of thermodynamics.)

I think cause and effect is a convenient concept for helping us to decide how to act. It provides a sense of personal responsibility. I don't think it is a rigorous scientific truth.

 

[Demystifier]

I think cause and effect is a convenient concept for helping us to decide how to act. It provides a sense of personal responsibility. I don't think it is a rigorous scientific truth.

So we basically agree on that issue.