This market will resolve when Wikipedia states that a specific interpretation is correct, and I deem it not to be vandalism
1,000
3.00Copenhagen with Many worlds should be connected into one. Here is why:
- From inside any single branch, you can't tell if:
* Other possibilities truly disappeared (Copenhagen)
* Or they happened in branches you can't see (Many Worlds)
- Both interpretations predict exactly the same observations for anyone inside the system
@SergeySetti All your bullet points are correct.
However the whole goal of these "interpretations' is to give an ontological explanation of the same theory, so no, you can't merge Copenhagen and Many worlds.
You could just remove "Copenhagen" from the list, as it doesn't give an ontology, it only describes what you experience.
You can remove also "Shut up and calculate" for the same reason. That is not an interpretation but absence of interpretation.
Remains only some weak (or worse) stuff. Wikipedia page should already give Everett theory (known as the many world interpretation) as correct, except people remains confused for dubious reasons. Main one is philosophers were so delighted that quantum theory seems to disprove realism, they were unable to adjust and understand when the opposite was shown.
@spider title says "closest ", there are degrees of accuracy. Newtonian mechanics is functionally not in contradiction with GR, but it is closer to reality.
@JussiVilleHeiskanen no I mean that - if I understand things correctly (this area isn't my specialty) - spacetime foam literally isn't an interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's like saying "orbits" or "falling" or "black holes" for a market on theories of gravity - a feature that will arise from some underlying theories, but not a theory in its own right.
If I'm missing something, please let me know.
(If I'm not missing something, @LivInTheLookingGlass should probably delete the option)
@spider I think "orbits" would be valid on a market on gravity inasmuch as they are a novelty of motion. That is, you could I suppose argue that Newton innovated more than orbits above whar Galileo had built. But orbits were a novelty not existing in other theories.
Its not strictly speaking a bug, it has very low liquidity due to being one of the first multi-choice markets made, and the liquidity values got converted as Manifold updated, leading to extreme volatility. I think its a fun quirk that should be left in, as the instability doesn't affect any more recently created markets.
Why? Do you think it has smaller computation complexity?
I am not even sure it provides a complete description of how things are. It works with microscopic world that follows quantum laws, classical world which does not, and does not say where is the boundary between them, or how to experimentally find it..
Reasons for Aaronson to doubt Bohmian mechanics:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412143.pdf
> Bohmian mechanics is incompatible with the belief that all physical observables are
discrete. But in my view, there are strong reasons to hold that belief, which include black
hole entropy bounds; the existence of a natural minimum length scale (10−33 cm); results
on area quantization in quantum gravity [205]; the fact that many physical quantities once
thought to be continuous have turned out to be discrete; the infinities of quantum field
theory; the implausibility of analog “hypercomputers”; and conceptual problems raised by
the independence of the continuum hypothesis.
@LivInTheLookingGlass "Wikipedia will not be clarified by market close" isn't a valid answer, right? Because the market can resolve at any point after it is closed.
@L are there, like, equations to go with the pretty animations? This is incredibly handwavy. It's not even clear whether the author is trying to modify QM, interpret it in a new way, or give a visual intuition for an existing interpretation.