But in both cases, the "state as an ensemble" will be tested by a series of individual measurements events, that cannot be reduced nor averaged.
"equivalence class of preparations" is quite vague, as it cannot be equivalent as defined by QM itself (no cloning). Either way that ensemble is the...
But that is not the point ! I agree with that perfectly: QFT have no additional claim to make about entanglement of spacelike measurement. @vanhees71 is not agreeing with this. So why do you say *I* made too strong claim ?
The ambiguity is probably on my side because if anything I said that QFT...
Nice ! You finally walked-back your claim that "nature is fundamentally random". Because if the theory is not, you then have no mathematical way to prove it.
So is game theory or statistical mechanics. Still, it does not make those "fundamentally random" nor "mysterious".
You yourself provided...
Not at all, I am fine with any constraints and rules that helps in any model. I see no issue with micro-causality. But there is a specific person on this forum that clearly does not understand its domain of application, and makes wrong claims about its domain of application.
Thank you for this...
I don't understand the contradiction. QM is linear and deterministic, and deals in probabilities (is stochastic).
I was under the impression that to make QM "inherently random", objective collapse added a piece of math (representing the collapse), and thus was not mere interpretation.
I agree...
OK, let's not call it that. Will qualifying it "a probabilistic" theory do ?
That's true as far as interpretation goes, but not as far as math goes. There is no mapping, no mathematical recipe, to map the theory to individual events.
And using probabilities requires an ensemble of events, a big...
Indeed, because dice of QFT are non-local, no magic is involved.
The Born's rule only project philosophical vector made of imaginary number into real philosophical numbers
That's the only correct part of you sentence. Sadly your vague philosophy does not allow you to interpret it correctly...
Let's see... "heads" and I'll give you one example .. and "tails" ... also.
Aside from the Spontaneous collapse, I think this document may be what you are looking for.
My point was that there are not an infinite number of those, even if some appear from time to time. Like Arnold Neumaier's...
I emphasis the not because of your post 33 where you declare "the real mystery is" about a totally mundane phenomena that have plethora of classical equivalent.
Bell's elucidate the QM case clearly. There are not that much ways to map ontologies to measurements processes.
So I am going to...
Why not is the question I would ask. And you can only "erase" a component by making it orthogonal. Actually you can use any angle, and then the split will not be equals. All this is pretty straightforward and intuitive, especially for spin.
I think I use the same intuition, and that is how I...
Nor the same frame will agree with its own previous value just by changing units.
Those "values" are not beable/ontologies in any sense, their usefulness is not to be denied, but they are just labels, not true statements about what is real.
The math actually tell us something important...
So are you saying that you choose some random z axis because you know in advance that the magnetic moments of the Ag atoms is orthogonal (not none, not zero) to that specific z direction only ?
That's not how the Ag atom are prepared, they are not in the X direction eigenstate.
This is...
Something without magnetic moment (whatever the orientation) is of not use for a Stern-Gerlach.
The thing created, the records, are change affecting the measurement device only. That is what you read from, the macro-scope. Everything else is interpretation. But if you have realist ontologies...
If the particle had no property, there would be a central unique spot. We never observe that. You cannot measure something that does not exist previously.
This is also tautological. If your throw banana at a Stern-Gerlach it won't work. I am not being facetious here.
If you use some other...
Ontologies, they pro & cons.
Well, yes, the variable/properties are hidden. That's why we need to measure them.
Interesting, but I am not sure what "information preservation" means, in their assumption. It seems contradictory to both QM and the second law of thermodynamic.
It means ontology...