Quantum interpretations reduced to absurd, in a nutshell

[Demystifier]

Let us introduce a new rule. You can criticize any QM interpretation you want, but to avoid too much philosophy the argument must be extremely concise. For definiteness, it may contain maximally 2 sentences, 1 equation and 1 reference. The general rule is - less is more.

Here is my take. In the following I criticize various interpretations by reducing them to absurd in just 1 or 2 sentences.

Logical positivism:
The meaning is meaningless.

Quantum logic and consistent histories:
QM is logically consistent, provided that the rules of logic are denied.

Statistical ensemble interpretation:
Individual measurement outcomes exist, but QM has nothing to say about them. Therefore QM is complete.

QBism, relational and other information-type versions of Copenhagenish interpretations:
We do not say that there is no objective reality out there. We say that there are no any problems with this alleged objective reality because it doesn't exist.

Many worlds:
The Universe looks so complex because it is just a point in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, where all points look alike. http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447

 

[A. Neumaier]

Here is my take. In the following I criticize various interpretations by reducing them to absurd in just 1 or 2 sentences.

Bohmian mechanics: Particles have exact trajectories but it doesn't matter because you cannot observe them. Observable is only what shut-up-and-calculate allows.

 

[Demystifier]

Bohmian mechanics: Particles have exact trajectories but it doesn't matter because you cannot observe them. Observable is only what shut-up-and-calculate allows.

Bohmian mechanics:
The only non-hidden thing is the "hidden variables".

 

[Klystron]

The general rule is - less is more.

Post-classical physics:
Just put "Quantum" before each term. Hence, "quantum mechanics" and "quantum mucus, er, foam".

 

[Lord Jestocost]

Strictly speaking, there is nothing to criticize on interpretations of quantum mechanics. At the end, interpretations are more or less personal “theories” about oneself and of oneself’s experience of observations. As remarked by John Gribbin:

“I stress, again, that all such interpretations are myths, crutches to help us imagine what is going on at the quantum level and to make testable predictions. They are not, any of them, uniquely ‘the truth’; rather, they are all ‘real’, even where they disagree with one another.”

 

[AlexCaledin]

... Interpretations are more or less personal “theories” about oneself and of oneself’s experience ...

- I would say, of oneself’s ambition in the first place! Typically, the ambition to find a certain underlying mechanism to feel/explain oneself emerging from there.

 

[Klystron]

- I would say, of oneself’s ambition in the first place! Typically, the ambition to find a certain underlying mechanism to feel/explain oneself emerging from there.

Ambition coupled with ability, preparation and hard work propels that underlying mechanism to emerge. Water appears so different after diving into the pool.

--Norm