Recent content by lodbrok

Sure, anyone can come up with their number for how many demons can dance simultaneously on the tip of a pin. It's never a question about the upper bound of SMHs (speculative metaphysical hypotheses) but rather the lower bound required to make sense of the formalism. And there is a good reason...

On the contrary, I think Barandes adds very important things that relate to ontology even without explicitly providing an intuition about the ontology: It adds: - Particles exist when we aren't looking - Particles exist in a single configuration, not multiple configurations at once (The cat is...

I'm bemused by the highlighted statement. What do you mean by it? I wasn't aware that the Universe models anything.

Is this an emotional reaction, or is it based on something wrong with his definition? The definition is quite straightforward: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.16935 What is absurd about this?

I see. Sorry, I misread "guide" to mean '... causing it to behave a particular way' as opposed to your intended '... guide our decision making about its behaviour'. That's why I immediately thought of the pilot wave.

I don't think Barandes will agree with what you call "guide". This is not like Bohmian mechanics at all. As I see it, in Barandes' view, the theory deals only with the evolution of the description, not the evolution of the configuration. Surely you can make inferences back and forth, but the...

Counter examples: Alice's detector is Off. I predict with certainty that she will get zero clicks. What element of reality in the particle could possibly have caused that? Another, instead of tossing, Bob simply places the coin heads up every time. I can predict the outcome will be heads with...

Regarding the existence of local hidden variables, EPR did not address this in their paper. Note the following quote in their conclusion:

That is not an accurate reading of the EPR paper. The paper deals with whether the QM description is complete, not whether local hidden variables exist.

EPR provided an operational definition of "realism" that has been used ever since. I'm not aware that anyone has provided a different one. If you think that definition is misguided, please suggest a new one. But if you are going to claim that "realism" is present or absent somewhere, it better...

Absolutely, and this is true not just of QM but also of classical mechanics. Thus it's not a revolutionary statement to say in some cases there is realism in QM.

The EPR definition of realism doesn't say the observed property is real. It says "there exists a physical property corresponding to the observed property"

Spin of what? Does the system exist before the measurement is performed?

In that case, QM has the prediction with 100% certainty, so I'm not sure what you mean by it's not something QM has. So by definition, at least per EPR, QM has realism. You could provide a different definition of realism, which QM doesn't have, but according to the EPR definition, QM has...

But this is precisely Einstein's definition of realism. If you can predict the outcome with certainty, then there exists a physical property corresponding to the measurement outcome -- almost verbatim from the EPR paper. Using Einstein's "definition" of realism, would you say there is realism in QM?