More evidence that the wavefunction is ontologically real?

[bhobba]

I was asking about that example that I quoted above, basically the subjectivity of the wave function proved by comparing the measurement of two different observers.

That doesn't prove subjectivity - that would be impossible since there are many interpretations where its anything but subjective.

That said - no I don't know of other sources that go down that path.

Thanks
Bill

 

[carllooper]

You and me both.

It's the same thing as Frequentest vs Bayesian probability - you find heated arguments on both sides. Bayesian is subjective - in fact I can't really tell the difference between Copenhagen and the Bayesian interpretation of QM:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

John Baez, who often penetrates to the heart of issues, says it well:
'It turns out that a lot of arguments about the interpretation of quantum theory are at least partially arguments about the meaning of the probability!'

Here is the actual Bayseayn interpretation of QM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

Thanks
Bill

I'd agree with the quote from John Baez.

The difference between Bayes and Copenhagen is that Bayes is completely compatible with and assumes classical realism (classical probability) whereas Copenhagen ultimately isn't. One can use Bayes in a coin flip experiment, and one can even use Bayes in a quantum theory experiment. But one can't use Copenhagen in a coin flip experiment, unless one is being particularly selective on what aspects of Copenhagen one uses, such as it's Bayesian aspect.

C