Given this interesting information and given the Dürr and Teufel quote in post #21, I have another question if you don't mind. They wrote: "They must be there: a particle theory without particle positions is inconceivable." [emphasis mine]
If I take that claim literally, they are stating a...
I don't have that reference, so thank you for the quote. In case you don't have the Norsen reference, he discusses some motivation for distinguishing between what is ontic in a theory and what is not.
Section 1.5 Ontology, page 18:
Page 21:
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: An Exploration of...
Isn't it one reason why Einstein thought QM is incomplete? It is one reason Schrodinger had problems with QM as we know from his famous paper. We also know Schrodinger and Einstein corresponded and that Einstein used a similar argument (it isn't clear to me who used it first). Einstein spoke of...
Thank you, that helps me understand your first post to this thread and what you mean by 'nomological'. I'm glad you mentioned it because I was under the impression that both MWI and Bohmian mechanics posit an real configuration space wave function. I looked for the Norsen paper because of my...
I find it really difficult to understand how the configuration space wavefunction could be real (not that my difficulties are an argument for anything), so I was intrigued to find this paper by Norsen, Marian, and Oriols (2015, Synthese, or https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3676) that sounds a little...
Tumulka (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.04168.pdf) also discusses many of these assumptions.
Has anyone tried to deny the Reichenbach common cause principle to avoid denying locality? I'm trying to think how that would go...I suppose one could argue that the correlation between two phenomena is...
That is very helpful, and I did pick up some of it in your earlier comments, thank you. One of the great things about this site is that people such as yourself give me new things to read and think about. Your warning about relativistic and non-relativistic explanations of the EPR thought...
I wouldn't use the word 'prove' either. I was trying to follow along with Bill's stipulation that the entangled-pair be treated as a single object in order to understand how that removes quantum non-locality. But the single-object-not-spatially-extended-but-present-in-two-places is where it...
That's well above my pay grade. :oldbiggrin: Anyway, if we can't even agree on the EPR setup, I don't think I'd be able to understand your proposed explanation of EPR-Bell non-locality either, but thanks for giving it a go.
Yes, I shouldn't have used the term 'state', because I didn't mean to take a position on whether or not the wavefunction is "real". The math isn't the phenomenon anyway. The 'object' is whatever it is that is there for Alice and Bob to measure. It is extended in space because Alice and Bob are...
That's half of it, but it cuts both ways. If someone is using 'non-locality' in a way you think is non-standard, it is pointless and disingenuous to pretend they are using it in a way that "obtains via de facto consensus" in order to refute them. You've likely done no such thing.
Besides...