Like which? Copenhagen breaks every physical symmetry we have if you ever let it kick in, and is identical to MWI if you don’t. Some others, like the Bohm guide-wave include MWI but refuse to recognize that they did so (anything real enough to have a causal influence on reality is itself real. The guide-wave is thus real, and the One True Worldline superfluous). The bidirectional time interpretation is blatantly erroneous (measurement is not a time-symmetric process)...
I don’t know much about the transactional interpretation. Maybe that stands, but I suspect it leaves open the question of just what the transactions are between (if it doesn’t, then it’s making testable predictions at variance with QM as it stands, like Copenhagen)
The guide-wave contains everything. It’s never collapsed, there’s no fade-away as you recede from the worldline. The rules governing the guide-wave are exactly those of quantum mechanics, which don’t mention any worldline. As far as the guide-wave is concerned, the worldline doesn’t exist. It’s a one-way connection. Right there we’ve got an oddity—the only entity in physics that would act without a reaction.
But setting that aside, the guide-wave implements the dynamics of branches not taken by the worldline. You see a nuclear decay? Nothing’s halting the guide-wave from implementing the portion of that decay that occurred in a different direction at a different time. So it does. So you have the dead cat component as well as the live cat component. Wigner’s friend is also still chilling out waiting for something to come up.
The guide-wave doesn’t know where the worldline went, so it keeps on ticking, following the time evolution operator—and, if you choose to break it into components, meticulously working out the consequences of every one of those components—whether or not the worldline happens to be anything like that.
If you want me to think something doesn’t exist, stop implementing its dynamics!
It doesn’t, except in the minds of confused people assigning ontological significance to a calculational prescription. No interpretation out there has more predictive power than “1. Do unitary evolution, 2. Apply Born rule”.
I don’t disagree with the MWI, I just object to people privileging it over any other interpretation.
Like which? Copenhagen breaks every physical symmetry we have if you ever let it kick in, and is identical to MWI if you don’t. Some others, like the Bohm guide-wave include MWI but refuse to recognize that they did so (anything real enough to have a causal influence on reality is itself real. The guide-wave is thus real, and the One True Worldline superfluous). The bidirectional time interpretation is blatantly erroneous (measurement is not a time-symmetric process)...
I don’t know much about the transactional interpretation. Maybe that stands, but I suspect it leaves open the question of just what the transactions are between (if it doesn’t, then it’s making testable predictions at variance with QM as it stands, like Copenhagen)
Any others?
Can you unpack your argument against Bohm? Why does a real guide-wave require multiple worlds?
The guide-wave contains everything. It’s never collapsed, there’s no fade-away as you recede from the worldline. The rules governing the guide-wave are exactly those of quantum mechanics, which don’t mention any worldline. As far as the guide-wave is concerned, the worldline doesn’t exist. It’s a one-way connection. Right there we’ve got an oddity—the only entity in physics that would act without a reaction.
But setting that aside, the guide-wave implements the dynamics of branches not taken by the worldline. You see a nuclear decay? Nothing’s halting the guide-wave from implementing the portion of that decay that occurred in a different direction at a different time. So it does. So you have the dead cat component as well as the live cat component. Wigner’s friend is also still chilling out waiting for something to come up.
The guide-wave doesn’t know where the worldline went, so it keeps on ticking, following the time evolution operator—and, if you choose to break it into components, meticulously working out the consequences of every one of those components—whether or not the worldline happens to be anything like that.
If you want me to think something doesn’t exist, stop implementing its dynamics!
It doesn’t, except in the minds of confused people assigning ontological significance to a calculational prescription. No interpretation out there has more predictive power than “1. Do unitary evolution, 2. Apply Born rule”.
If you only consider it a calculational prescription and not an ontologically real thing, then you’ve totally just accepted MWI!
Not sure what you mean. Please feel free to elaborate on that.