Some interpretations actually do make testable predictions (like the Many Wolds Interpretation), but they tend to be quite hard to test in practice
Some people have argued that some interpretations follow more naturally from the mathematics. It’s pretty clear in my opinion that Bohmian Mechanics is postulating additional structure on top of the mathematics we have now, while many-worlds is not really doing that.
Your comment, and the links, were very helpful and thought-provoking—thanks.
I’ve definitely reached the limit of my expertise—so take this with a pinch of salt—but I think the key thing for me is whether any of the interpretations lead to observable real-world differences.
I didn’t fully understand the link you provided to the many worlds interpretation making testable predictions, but it appeared to be talking only of thought experiments that would require non-existent technology to carry out in practice.
I agree with you that some interpretations would, if “true”*, require additional mathematics to describe the new underlying mechanism they postulate. But, from my limited understanding, that new mathematics would itself not be testable—because it would only result in the same real-world observable behaviour as all the other interpretations.
Thanks again.
*I’m not really sure what this word even means in this context (spot the non-philosopher), when there is no means of using experimental results to distinguish between interpretations.
Not an expert on the foundations of QM, but a few points on your question:
For some interpretations the mathematics does change somewhat (e.g. Bohmian Mechanics, Collapse Theories)
Some interpretations actually do make testable predictions (like the Many Wolds Interpretation), but they tend to be quite hard to test in practice
Some people have argued that some interpretations follow more naturally from the mathematics. It’s pretty clear in my opinion that Bohmian Mechanics is postulating additional structure on top of the mathematics we have now, while many-worlds is not really doing that.
Your comment, and the links, were very helpful and thought-provoking—thanks.
I’ve definitely reached the limit of my expertise—so take this with a pinch of salt—but I think the key thing for me is whether any of the interpretations lead to observable real-world differences.
I didn’t fully understand the link you provided to the many worlds interpretation making testable predictions, but it appeared to be talking only of thought experiments that would require non-existent technology to carry out in practice.
I agree with you that some interpretations would, if “true”*, require additional mathematics to describe the new underlying mechanism they postulate. But, from my limited understanding, that new mathematics would itself not be testable—because it would only result in the same real-world observable behaviour as all the other interpretations.
Thanks again.
*I’m not really sure what this word even means in this context (spot the non-philosopher), when there is no means of using experimental results to distinguish between interpretations.