bhobba's latest activity

l think the full quote is clearer.

I think we should be more critical towards people like Niels Bohr (and also John Bell) who insist on never saying or writing anything...

Only with a very...nuanced...meaning to the word "complete". :wink: I think a better way to describe it would be that Bohr and other...

That's not quite what it says, although many of its proponents claim that it is. Their claim is based on the particulare interpretation...

It does not imply the reality of the quantum state (nor can it, since QM is wrong). See the original paper...

Turns out the probabilistic (indeterministic) nature of quantum mechanics (QM) follows from the discrete outcomes. I can't explain all...

I'm not sure what you mean. But I might be the wrong person to ask, since my own take on QM interpretations is that, while they can be...

Not when looked at carefully. What Bohr and some other adherents did say (unecessaryily IMHO) was it was complete. That Einsten...

That you must interpret QFT - not QM. Art Hobson did that in his book I referenced. While I currently advocate that interpretation...

No, Copenhagen basically says that we can't even know any "ontology" over and above the probabilistic predictions QM makes for...

A standard Copenhagen-like interpretation doesn't take any position about what is really happening with "the evolution of the universe"...

But only if you force the exact same input state each time--which has to include the unobservable particle positions as well as the wave...

The answer is interpretation-dependent. In many worlds, for example, it is fully deterministic. Copenhagen - no. Decoherent...

Here is a nice explanation of the PBR theorem by Maudlin: He only acknowledges the assumption of statistical independence, so you...

That role is interpretation dependent. In some interpretations, such as the MWI, there is no actual randomness anywhere; everything is...