Recent content by JG11

Does Lucien Hardy come to the wrong conclusion that realist lorentz invariant models make the wrong predictions?

Interesting. Say that one formulates the MWI to be as non local as bohmian mechanics (I guess by inserting the non locality by hand), would it still be empirically lorentz invariant like bohmian mechanics?

Can the MWI be made lorentz invariant then? GRW? I guess not because of what Hardys paradox shows...?

So this would even apply to the many world interpretation and the GRW theories?

Does Hardy's paradox show that all realist interpretations cannot be made lorentz invariant? Or is it just realist hidden variable theories?

Anyone have an answer?

I always had a tough time understanding how QFT relates to reality. Are these quantum fields (electron field, ect) physically real? Are they things that exist in space or are they just mathematical abstractions that help use calculate things?

That can be solved with property mind body dualism. http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~jabarret/bio/publications/BC10.pdf

Every derivation from the MWI of the born rule is circular. http://fmoldove.blogspot.com/search?q=MWI So my question is, can the MWI state the born rule as a postulate (without deriving) and still be a coherent interpretation of probability? The most famous argument against this notion is by...

Interesting. I found another one that uses time symmetry https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.03670.pdf . It looks to me that the MWI can use this to derive the Born rule.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6992 They derive the born rule from the MWI. Is this circular?

As I understand, the minimal length is crucial to any theory of quantum gravity in order for that theory to be consistent. You can look it up yourself.

Modal interpretations are a class of realist non local hidden variable theories. However, they cannot be made fundamentally lorentz invariant. However, neither can bohmian mechanics but BH is still emprically lorentz invariant. So are modal interpretation empirically lorentz invariant as well?

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0605250 Here is an attempt to make bohmian mechanics compatible with string theory. It posits that T duality breaks at the fundamental level, and that the is no minimal length in the theory. Does this proposal make sense?

So there is no minimal length in the bohmian mechanics version of string theory? That's a huge change to the theory.