Recent content by Matterwave

I don't think the age of the argument makes it outdated or nonsense. They missed an implicit assumption of locality which was later pointed out by Bell and their final point using counterfactuals to attack the uncertainty principle wasn't really necessary, but overall it's a wonderful paper to...

Ok, I will add the paper to my reading list! It just keeps getting longer~

I don't know about you, but if I look around I see stuff. Do you not? It is true that we don't have a working theory of quantum gravity, but we have a working theory of how the quantum field theories work inside classical background gravity. This is called quantum field theory in curved...

It is a difficult task indeed to remain fully "interpretation independent". To try to do so, they stick to the probabilities of measurement outcomes which we know are given by the Born rule on the eigenbases of observables (i.e. self adjoint operators on the Hilbert space). But, it seems to me...

From my understanding, the Riemann Hypothesis critical strip paper would be huge if true. I'm curious how long that one in particular took.

I wonder what strategy you found? Could you post it with spoilers? :)

I'm not sure if humor was what they were going for, but it did seem humorous to me how directly they called out Zeilinger. 😂 This sentence probably needs you to view it through the lens of a Bohmian (or, interestingly, perhaps a MWI person). What they mean with "establish" here is more like...

I do not have permissions to move posts, that would have to be done by a Mentor, or you can create a new thread in the new forum. From my understanding, the default view is that it is either not a causal connection (i.e. Copenhagen's rough "it collapses the wave function, but don't try to...

The keyword is "affects". Correlations (e.g. of spin in a singlet state) between space-like separated measurements is the experimental fact and uncontroversial. What those experimental facts "really mean" in terms of causality is the entire debate (but, as Peter noted, it's a debate at the...

You certainly didn't use that phrase. And I certainly didn't argue for "sacred meaning" in definitions. But I will drop the argumentation here. It doesn't seem like the point is getting across.

What do we mean by "meaning" if not the relation of ideas?

For example, that expression of kinetic energy is the one that shows up in (non-relativistic) energy conservation laws. That expression of the work gives rise to conservative vs non conservative forces. They don't have to be the only possible expressions. All I am claiming is that it is not a...

Yeah I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to solve it either. At least not without weeks/months..years.. of thought lol.

This spoiler is indeed the main insight for the solution. However, I'm not sure truly if it actually makes the answer that much easier to arrive at haha. The fun part of this puzzle is even if you know the prisoner's strategy, it's still non trivial to reason out why it works.

There are reasons why we define things the way we do. Trying to understand those reasons is not a fools errand, but in fact a major point of learning and understanding in the first place. Your post #15 seemed to suggest otherwise: that looking for meaning (I read this loosely as reasoning) in...