What do you think of the interpretations of quantum mechanics

What do you think of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, for example; the interpretation of the many worlds of quantum mechanics, although it is usually used as an evolutionary argument, here in apparent opposition we use guided evolution, there seems to be a theological contradiction with this argument, For example, how well adjusted the fundamental constants is because there are many worlds and we add an anthropic principle and we know that life arose in this world, but the Bible only mentions this reality, it is also not falsifiable because those universes are separated, no It seems like real science, we should opt for another interpretation, Bohm’s interpretation, which seems to be a good mechanism for eventual divine interventions and is intuitive, it moves the particles with a pilot wave, that is if this wave changes at infinite speed, it is in the whole universe and it is almost certain that it is invisible, that is, almost 100% that it is not falsifiable, stochastic quantum mechanics, here the dimension changes randomly, and that generates quantum randomness, while the particles are actually classical except for things like entanglement, superdeterminism, saying that the observer is intertwined with the particle or that he chooses how to observe because the universe chose it in advance and that explains everything , here there is no free will, so little does it seem that science can be trusted and this hypothesis is not falsifiable, theories with quantum retrocausality, a kind of fatalism where retrocausality creates destiny, we could take advantage of them to explain prophecies and revelations, the models of collapse that argue that there is only one world here the system collapses its own wave function by some kind of self-interaction, one of them creates a hole for free will, that is god penrose is the effect of quantumizing Newtonian gravity basically although special relativity can be added, general relativity not yet, but with all of being true would be a good approximation, it allows the existence of spirits and that the moon does not disappear when we do not see it with gravity events quantum ad that occur everywhere and count as a bleating observer since, according to the theory, they are protoconscious events, he justifies not being able to incorporate general relativity with which it emerges from his theory that acts on a quantum scale and that therefore and thanks to protoconscious events the complete theory would probably be incomprehensible because it is a psychophysical theory, that is, it will open the door to many supernatural things that can easily interact with us through our minds, which for the theory are also explained largely by quantum gravity + quantum computing topology, the Neural network is information preprocessing, vegetative system and little more, but these theories violate the conservation of energy in a way that according to their creators is unobservable for current experiments and also violate unitarity, that is to say, the probabilities of something exceed 100, something that compensate with the opposite event that has a negative probability, or simply they minimize it and say one day we will understand it, but their strong point is that they solve the problem of quantum chaos, they could be tested in the future in 10 or 15 years because they generate slightly different predictions from normal quantum mechanics, particularly with the double slit experiment only more sensitive to microdifferences with respect to normal quantum mechanics, experiments in quantum computers and with materials that maintain their quantum properties on a large scale, such as superconductors (and sometimes large systems that maintain their quantum properties thanks to cold, but they could not do it as much as is currently thought thanks to theory) and they have certain free parameters that are adjusted with astronomical data, harmonizes the quantum and classical world creating mechanisms that weaken quantum properties at macroscale and are the most intuitive that exist, not counting bohm’s interpretation, personally I like to believe in retrocausal destiny+m models of collapse,i like it as an interpretation(actually i love the penrose interpretation,which includes retrocausal effects and allows for some kind of spirituality),the copenhagen interpretation seems incomplete,many believe it is just a part of quantum gravity theory, which if it could explain reality and not be a mere mathematical formalism and therefore only useful to calculate, and finally the other interpretations that do nothing more than argue and then limit themselves to logical positivism, basically quantum is not reality only the maximum information that we can extract from this, it seems simple conformism, so I ask that I want everyone to give their opinion, for my part I will probably limit myself to trying to defend my position.

I don’t believe in guided evolution. I don’t think Yahweh guided the process but that natural selection did and if he did guide it there seems to be no evidence of it. I’m not sure if most even believe in guided evolution in here.

As for the rest I don’t really have an opinion it. It’s not something I’ve ever studied or taken much interest in. Seems other dimensions are not provable , but I still think it’s probable. I don’t believe in it like in the way we see i’ films where Jet Li tracks down his other selves.

1 Like

Right there with you, @SkovandOfMitaze. I don’t have an opinion nor do I have much of a clue. All I know about the extremely wee world is that it is not predictable in a Newtonian way. Since I live in that Newtonian world and what we lay science people hear of the wee world is hard to translate to what we citizens of Newtonian think we know, I don’t have a dog in that fight. Good luck to all your favorite candidates.

2 Likes

I don’t think the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is what you think it is, and it has nothing to do with evolution specifically. According to MWI, there are nearly an infinite number of universes being birthed right this second, two for each quantum event that can have two outcomes.

Just so we are clear, the theory of evolution only deals with how life diversified through time. That’s it.
Evolution has nothing to do with how our universe came about, or how particle physics works.

Why should we opt for Bohm’s interpretation for real science? Is it because you prefer it from a subjective point of view, or because it makes better predictions for experimental data?

1 Like

Is there anybody here who is able to provide an arm-chair layman’s summary of some of the main QM interpretations - or at least summarize what some of the apparent philosophical implications of each interpretation would be? I’ve looked these things up before, but still struggle to keep them straight myself.

And while I can recognize that biological evolution has nothing to do with this, I notice that Wikipedia includes at least the more general concept of evolutionary change in its phraseology … here:

The statistical interpretation of wavefunctions due to Max Born differs sharply from Schrödinger’s original intent, which was to have a theory with continuous time evolution and in which wavefunctions directly described physical reality.

and also even up to and including a “Quantum Darwinism” theory in its list - as interesting as that may be. But without needing to go into all the weeds of fringe theories, does the Copenhagen interpretation have pretty much just one or two other ‘main’ contenders? Like the MWI? or Bohm’s interpretation (if that one is different)?

From my understanding as an amateur armchair physicist . . .

If a coin flip were a quantum event (which it isn’t, but using it here as an analogy), you would have an indeterminate state while the coin was in the air and an outcome when the coin landed on one side. If my understanding is correct, two universes would be created when the coin lands, one where the coin is heads up and one where the coin is tails up. This would be true for every quantum event.

The various interpretations try to explain what randomness means in these systems, and what, if any, deterministic properties quantum mechanics may have. One of the properties that these interpretations try to tackle is entanglement which produces “spooky action at a distance” as coined by Einstein. If you have an entangled particle pair then they will often have opposites of a certain characteristic, such as spin. If the particles are separated you can measure the spin of one particle and the other particle will adopt the opposite spin immediately no matter how much distance is in between the particles. This requires information to travel faster than the speed of light unless there is something more fundamental tying them together.

image

In MWI, there are two universes created when the entangled particles are created and the results you measure were already determined by the universe you are in. That’s one way around the paradox.

note: everything in my post has the caveat “as far as I know from my very poor understanding of quantum mechanics”

2 Likes

Good! That can only help to limit the information provided to a manageable amount to chew on.

By the way I completely agree with what you said earlier in this thread about

As far as I know MWI amounts to a philosophical thought experiment which I’ve never found useful. Though of course that might be owing to my willful ignorance toward things outside Newtonia.

What really bothers me is when MW gets blended with the multiverse hypothesis. A multiverse makes perfect sense without simultaneous infinite spin-off universes emerging from every quantum event.

MWI is sometimes frowned on because of it’s lack of aesthetic beauty. For example, Kaku often discusses finding that simple, short equation that can explain swaths of physics (e.g. Einstein’s equations). If there is anywhere in the sciences where there is an obvious meeting of methodology and philosophy it is at the extremes of physics. Steven Weinberg also talks about the relationship between theoretical physics and aesthetics in some of his books.

Agreed. MW is trying to explain the observations we are making right here in the now which is just as interesting as anything relating to the origin of the universe. The two may be tied together at some level, but it is a mistake to treat them as a monolithic explanation.

1 Like

I believe in the ‘guided’ evolution of the universe like I do in evolution (and ‘planned’ kidney DNA mutations, for instance). That applies to the orchestration of many things (and everyone rolls their eyes and sighs) that we will not reprise* here (and then a deafening chorus of “Yay!” ; - ).
 

 


*That is not an inadvertent use of the word, because God’s orchestrations are worthy of celebration, with music. And his children have and will.

1 Like

because if we make god control the universal guide wave we can explain the miracles, so if it is subjective.
and the interpretation of many worlds is an evolutionary argument because if the time of the universe does not give the improbability of evolution, from nothing we invent infinite universes and we put an anthropic principle in it, guided evolution seems better and guided evolution with eight or it seems much better is more I like to mix bohm with och or and retrocausality so we put spirits through och or miracles through bohm and prophecies through retrocausality, what’s wrong?

In fact, let’s say that the laws of physics are coincidentally well adjusted, fine, but they do not obey higher laws, the mathematical laws and where do they come from… I think that just as God did not create love and justice were In him, from the beginning, mathematics was part of God and how the artist expands his subjectivity in his works because it is inevitable and because he likes it or has more serious reasons such as leaving humans without excuses to ignore it and we humans have to resembling god in some sense, for example we are both living beings and being part of a universe that incorporates something of the mind of god it was inevitable that we would understand something of it, without even looking at nature, for example mathematics that live on mental constructs that They do not seem to correlate with the world a priori and that time later it is discovered that yes, there is a connection between human mathematical understanding and God, see;Romans 1:20 NIV - For since the creation of the world - Bible Gateway

I’m not sure what you mean exactly… There is this which I frequently quote when YECs are trying to twist physical reality to fit their flawed concepts of science by having constants change willy-nilly if it suits them and their misunderstanding of scripture:
 

This is what the LORD says: If I have not established my covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth…
Jeremiah 33:25

They obey a higher law – God himself.

and those laws of god himself are equations

Maybe the ‘fixed laws’ are physical constants, like the speed of light, the cosmological constant and g, among other things. It seems possible at least they might be other values in another universe, fixed by God.

In my experience, it is better to let data guide the theory instead of ideology.

How are you determining what is better?

We would also have to consider mutations that cause disease which gets us into the whole Problem of Suffering.

I think the interpretations which agree with scientific findings, like the Everett and Copenhagen interpretations are essentially equivalent – different ways of looking at the same thing. The mathematics of the Everett (many worlds) interpretation is simply pointing to the fact that the future is a superposition of possibilities. The Bohm’ interpretation is not agreement with scientific findings – it is basically tossing out the premises of the scientific worldview and is thus equivalent to fantasy.

The ones established forever and ever, decreed a statute that shall not pass
psalm 148;6
He said statute, I mean law, not constant we can have the same light, but vary c, that is, the speed of light could be higher or lower and I believe that God can change it as he sees fit.

I see no difference in denotation or connotation.
 

If you are at all familiar with any of my scribblings here you know that I believe God is sovereign and can intervene into physical reality when and how he sees fit. But typically his interventions do not break or suspend or change any of the natural laws he has instituted since the creation of the universe – his M.O. usually consists of the orchestration and marvelous timing and placing of events concerning his children, minimalistically but with major effect. Given the history of his methodology, it does not seem likely that he will change g, let alone c.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.