tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post5130664473921141285..comments2024-03-27T20:37:09.185-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Properties of the model and the modeledAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-35078637414287945272015-02-13T08:49:14.799-06:002015-02-13T08:49:14.799-06:00Pruss: I don't claim to be expert in QM or in ...Pruss: I don't claim to be expert in QM or in the mathematics that undergirds it. I'm a complete layman. But it seems to me that Bell's demand for "local beables" is relevant to your concern. I mean, if a single point in a configuration space can refer to many different spatio-temporal-material situations, then one needs a quantum theory which has both the wave-function AND a specification fo the local beables. I personally think Bohmian Mechanics is the best candidate myself (and the requirement of superluminal causation doesn't bother my neo-Lorentzian self one bit! LOL). Bohmian Mechanics lets the wave-function evolve in accord with Schrodinger's equations (no collapses), but it adds the extra specification of where the particles are. In Bells' terms, it specifies the local beables. So, while there are several POSSIBLE physical instantiations of a point in the configuration space of the wave-function, there is only one ACTUAL physical situation which is predicated on the distribution of particles. So, even if a wave function has (for example) an equal possibility of a dead and living cat, the distribution of particles "alive-cat-wise" settles the issue.<br /><br />Have I totally missed the desiderata of your original post, or do you think something like Bohmian Mechanics (or maybe one of the forms of GRW) is relevant to your question?Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.com