Demystifier's latest activity

We are talking about the Coleman's interpretation (which is not RQM), for which you said that you find convincing, so I thought that's...

Right, it doesn't exist in the Neumaier's interpretation, but it exists in your interpretation.

So you would say that they exist, but can't be represented mathematically, right? The Bell's analysis then can't be applied to them...

Fine, but does it mean that the subsystem is not ontological, i.e., that the subsystem does not exist in a strict sense? For example, if...

Yes, you can put it this way.

I mean this thread, post #25.

"Is" and "can be" are not the same thing. But you didn't respond to my objection that your notion of "particle", as an object that...

No. The beable does not need to be an additional variable. For example, in the many world interpretation the beable ##\lambda## is the...

No. The ##\lambda## is what Bell calls a beable, which does not necessarily need to be hidden.

No, I mean the Bell's ##\lambda##. I think it is implicitly, if not explicitly. Then I don't understand what you mean. Can you quote...

Is there such a thing as a state of existence? If not, then there is no clear ontology. I meant the block universe interpretation. I'm...

I don't think that that's what the relational interpretation says. The crucial issue is the interpretation of entanglement, because...

Are you saying that relational QM has a clear ontology? If you do, what is it?

If the geocentric model preferred by the catholic church is the metaphor for the orthodox interpretation of QM, then the heliocentric...

I don't know whether Coleman's position contains something original, but there is something else that I find problematic. Coleman first...