I model macrophysical observations as discrete too. But I also model tables and chairs as discrete, without needing to impose any requirements that they not be made of non-discrete stuff. A microphysical explanation of discrete observations doesn’t need to be made up of discrete parts.
Then you need a theory of how the continuous microstate determines the discrete macrostate. E.g. as a function from reals to booleans. What is that theory in the case of the wave function determining photon measurements?
If the microphysical theory is like quantum mechanics (Bohm-ish mechanics very much included), this is basically Schrödinger’s cat argument. It would be absurd if there was not some function from the microphysical state of the world to the truth of the macrophysical fact of whether the cat in the box is alive or dead. Therefore, there is some such function, and if quantum mechanics doesn’t support it then quantum mechanics is incomplete.
Schrödinger was wrong about the cat thing, as far as we can tell. His knowledge of discrete macrophysical states of cats had an explanation, but didn’t directly reflect reality.
There are absurd quantum states that don’t allow for a function from the microphysical state of the world to whether I observe a photon as having spin left or spin right. If I believe otherwise, my beliefs deserve an explanation, but that doesn’t mean they directly reflect reality.
I’m not asking for there to be a function to the entire world state, just a function to observations. Otherwise the theory does not explain observations!
(aside: I think Bohm does say there is a definite answer in the cat case, as there is a definite configuration that is the true one; it’s Copenhagen that fails to say it is one way or the other)
I model macrophysical observations as discrete too. But I also model tables and chairs as discrete, without needing to impose any requirements that they not be made of non-discrete stuff. A microphysical explanation of discrete observations doesn’t need to be made up of discrete parts.
Then you need a theory of how the continuous microstate determines the discrete macrostate. E.g. as a function from reals to booleans. What is that theory in the case of the wave function determining photon measurements?
If the microphysical theory is like quantum mechanics (Bohm-ish mechanics very much included), this is basically Schrödinger’s cat argument. It would be absurd if there was not some function from the microphysical state of the world to the truth of the macrophysical fact of whether the cat in the box is alive or dead. Therefore, there is some such function, and if quantum mechanics doesn’t support it then quantum mechanics is incomplete.
Schrödinger was wrong about the cat thing, as far as we can tell. His knowledge of discrete macrophysical states of cats had an explanation, but didn’t directly reflect reality.
There are absurd quantum states that don’t allow for a function from the microphysical state of the world to whether I observe a photon as having spin left or spin right. If I believe otherwise, my beliefs deserve an explanation, but that doesn’t mean they directly reflect reality.
I’m not asking for there to be a function to the entire world state, just a function to observations. Otherwise the theory does not explain observations!
(aside: I think Bohm does say there is a definite answer in the cat case, as there is a definite configuration that is the true one; it’s Copenhagen that fails to say it is one way or the other)