>>9871773>I think you should say: There is a consensus and a bunch of cranks who think that MWI or Bohm (this last are, at least, trying to do a consistent QM, but they cannot deal with QFT).Ok then, what is the consensus? Why should I expect phenomena to be described by probability amplitudes? What even IS a probability amplitude, can you give me any sort of contrived example using classical physics that requires their use?
>What about the papers from Leslie Ballentine?I'm not familiar with what verifiable statements he made. Can you link a relevant paper?
>Why? "Because I say so".I said I was speculating, but I can explain my though process here a little more.
Do you know the Bayesian interpretation of statistical mechanics? It's the idea that statistical mechanics works, not because physics obeys some distribution (mind-projection fallacy), but because it is the least biased way to make a prediction. Testing methods in statistical mechanics would be akin to testing if 1+1=2 by repeated experiments with assembling objects; it's nonsensical because it's a logical principle, not a phenomenological one, and in this case you have to assume it's true to try to test it in the first place. If we did an experiment like this we aren't measuring anything physically, we're just verifying figments of our own imagination.
QM and QFT when we don't consider measurements are actually completely deterministic. The Schrödinger equation evolves in a well-defined, deterministic manner, and the processes in QFT have a more complex deterministic structure that nevertheless must be approximated for practical calculations.
Probabilities only show up when we try to mesh the QM or QFT world with our world of length, force, time, ect. Physical observables that we have intuitive notions of, but a priori don't have any reason why they should be more fundamental than actions or fields.
>Crank.K
