From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Thu Aug 19 1999 - 13:29:36 MDT
John K Clark wrote:
> >Did I mention hidden variables? I guess 'limited knowledge' implies
> >hidden variables, but it doesn't have to, no sir.
>
> Your distinction between hidden variables and limited knowledge eludes me.
The many-worlds FAQ states that within the Copehagen interpretation,
"...the view has generally been adopted that the wavefunction associated
with an object is not a real "thing", but merely represents our *knowledge*
of the object."
It then objects to this view,
"This stance means that we can't answer questions about what's actually
happening, all we can answer is what will be the probability of a particular
result if we perform a measurement. This makes a lot of people very unhappy
since it provides no model for the object."
Hidden variables and many-worlds both share the idea that there's something
else to the theory that can be said to be "actually happening" and that the
fact that our only answer is a probability "makes a lot of people very
unhappy". Why are they unhappy? Because they believe that a probability
provides "no model for the object". My interpretation would be that the
probability is no less real than any other explanation.
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:49 MST