[cscurmudgeon]

Thank you, but I was looking for a proof formalized in hard and cold logic like in this paper below (so that assumptions are clear and formalized):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-011-9914-8

[pikchurn]

That's missing the point. Copenhagen is not mathematically wrong. Alternatives like many-worlds interpretation and pilot wave theory have the same (MWI) or isomorphic (pilot wave) equations. Copenhagen is epistemologically wrong in that it requires strictly more assumptions than is strictly necessary, specifically an theory of wave function collapse. It is "wrong" by Ockham's razor.

[cscurmudgeon]

> That's missing the point

I didn't say it is mathematically wrong

> It is "wrong" by Ockham's razor.

You do know that there are dozens of mathematical and formal versions of Ockham's razor.

Show me a formal version in which it is wrong. Otherwise arguing about this is like discussing politics where the loudest voice wins. Using English to debate the philosophical foundations of physcis after almost a hundred years of Hilbert, Gödel etc is what is wrong.

[pikchurn]

I already told you the added assumption: a theory of wave-form collapse as physical phenomena. Only the Copenhagen interpretation has this. I'm not going to spend my time putting that into formal logic notation to satisfy random person on the internet. Do it yourself.

[cscurmudgeon]

No one with a modicum of decent formal training is going to get convinced by a random person's informal rant about the Copenhagen interpretation.

> Do it yourself.

This is why the Copenhagen interpretation still lives on and will live on if its detractors are too lazy to formalize things decently.