- #36

- 308

- 122

This was what has been the mainstream position. It is named "shut up and calculate" or "minimal interpretation".Wouldn't it make more sense to accept QM on it's face without interpretations?

In itself, the minimal interpretation is quite useful for all those not interested in speculations about interpretations. It allowed them to do exactly that - to calculate predictions of QM for all the various experiments, without having to be afraid that the result would depend on all those highly speculative claims made by various interpretations.

To restrict oneself to computations and to ignore interpretational discussions was a quite reasonable decision in the past, when there were a lot of things not yet computed, a lot of new, unexpected quantum effects waiting for discovery. But "shut up and calculate" was more, it was not simply a reasonable decision made by many researchers, but a sort of command not to discuss interpretations at all, obligatory for all. A command which has essentially stopped the development of interpretations of quantum theory. Here, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. As a consequence, all the interpretations discussed today were developed by research groups consisting of at most 1 person (usually with that person working only part-time on that interpretation). This changed only as a long-term consequence of Bell's theorem (with Bell being at that time de facto the only supporter of Bohmian mechanics).

Fortunately, for quantum theory, this period is over now, with this subforum being part of the evidence. Unfortunately, it is not yet over for relativity, questioning the spacetime interpretation with other interpretations of SR or GR, say, the Lorentz ether, remains forbidden yet. Probably we have to wait another 30 years of failure of quantum gravity based on the spacetime interpretation until this will be allowed. (The optimistic variant would be that discussion about the viability of realistic quantum interpretations in the relativistic domain will be allowed here, and they automatically lead to a discussion about the viability of interpretations of relativity with preferred coordinates/frames.)

To accept QM as universal already is an interpretation. Or at least an essential and nontrivial part of it.Wouldn't it be easier to accept QM as universal and we're just a subsystem of some larger system in thermal equilibrium therefore whatever happens in our subsystem isn't objective? If you accept QM as universal do you really need interpretations?

In particular, if QM is universal, one would plausibly have to accept that there has to be a universal wave function, or a wave function of the universe, not? Given that this object cannot be known by anybody except God, this wave function would have to be part of the objective, observer-independent reality, not? Anyway, this object is not part of the minimal interpretation, where the wave function is defined as a state of a subsystem of the universe prepared by some measurement external to the subsystem.