Post #3124423

@androcat@toot.cat But I honestly view a certain version of the "orthodox" IQM this way, as being demonstrably wrong. By this I mean the view that macroscopic measuring apparatuses interacting with microscopic quantum systems induce a non-deterministic, irreversible state reduction, a change in the actual state of the system rather than just our knowledge of or belief about the system. There are, of course, many adherents of the "Copenhagen interpretation" who would say they don't take this view, but in my experience this is exactly how many working physicists view it. This is definitively incorrect, because it's inconsistent (without additional ingredients): macroscopic systems comprise many microscopic quantum systems, and a collection of quantum systems still obeys QM, with deterministic, reversible dynamics. This is precisely why when I want to think carefully about any subtle aspect of quantum measurement I turn to MWI, since it at least seems to present a self-consistent way to understand what's going on*. Granted, for most practical purposes thinking in the (ultimately incorrect) way outlined above works just fine. * This is not to say MWI is the only self-consistent IQM, it's just the one I'm most familiar with, outside of the spectrum one might refer to as "orthodox" or Copenhagen interpretation. @dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz