Recent content by javisot

"In this way, RQM succeeds in making sense of a fully quantum world without requiring hidden variables, many worlds, physical collapse mechanisms, or a special role for mind, agents, or similar." "For instance, a real fact is the position of a particle having a certain value x at a certain time...

Please don't create confusion. The paragraph you mentioned and tried to correct is by Rovelli, not me. My words don't confirm anything; I don't understand what interpretation you're referring to.

? No, it's a paragraph literally written by Rovelli.

I insist that in Rovelli's RQM vision, objects don't even exist, he says in the article that martinbn shared: "Dorato observes that the relativisation of values implies a relativisation of the very notion of object or entity, if (i) having some intrinsic, non-purely dispositional properties is...

I don't understand, physica; what you're correcting isn't a paragraph of mine, it's Rovelli's. Furthermore, I don't understand the correction you're proposing either.

I agree with Greg, this thread is not meant to offend Fresh42, Greg himself has used it to apologize.

The first part: "There is nothing in RQM that contradicts the assumption that the world is “out there”, irrespectively of our mental states, or perceptions. In this weak sense RQM is consistent with realism. " It contradicts the second part: "But RQM questions the assumption that each variables...

No. (Maybe some crazy physicist, but usually not)

Gödel's original solution does not contain black holes. Other Kerr-Gödel-type solutions may include them, for example, https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1984

This seems like a reasonable stance, since what happens between measurements is conflict and a source of interpretations; let's stick with what's important, what we should all agree on: quantum events. (Do we all really agree on this?) But I don't understand the difference between Candiotto and...

There are many EFE solutions that violate some, several, or all of the energy conditions. In addition to Gödel's universe, the interior of a Kerr black hole or the Tipler cylinder.

In QM, "particle" means "quantum object." By quantum object, we mean an object for which the uncertainty principle, superposition, etc are entirely relevant to understanding its evolution. The idea that the quantum object, in this case the silver atom, must exist "everywhere," perfectly...

I see the same problems as you; the reasonable thing to do is assume they exist without needing to measure (the electron exists between measurements). But that's probably not without its own problems. I didn't say one of the two options is my favorite. I can understand why some authors choose...

-The value of a measurement exists without needing to measure it. -The value of a measurement does not exist until we measure it. (This is similar to "an electron does not exist until we measure it.") Aren't we talking about the measurement problem?

Sabine has uploaded a video about this, But I still don't understand it... You can throw a table at my head and hurt me, but you can't throw a wave function at my head and hurt me. A function is a mathematical object. (I could understand that depending on the information the wave function...