Search results

I also advocate "radical empiricism," as James called neutral monism. Here is our paper on it.

This Insight is relevant. I mention Smolin's view at the end.

As in a deterministic presentism versus block universe.

There is a difference between a future that is "determined but nonexistent" and a future that "exists." In the latter case for example, the Geroch quote applies, but not in the former. I don't know anything about "infinite time histories," so I can't comment there :-)

You need the settings that go with the outcomes (not the settings a nanosecond before or after), so both pieces of information are "there" in the future together.

If information about the future measurement settings exists at the emission event where and when the particles are emitted, then the future exists. If the future exists, no thing is moving in spacetime, no information is "being sent" anywhere. Here is a good quote from Geroch: Therefore, the...

That's a quote from Evans' paper, but I would call dBB a "classical" ontology.

We wrote an entire book arguing for adynamical explanation over dynamical explanation ("Beyond the Dynamical Universe," Oxford UP, 2018) and I have written many Insights along those lines. However, I think the easiest way to view adynamical constraint-based explanation is via "principle"...

Ken is the editor of a special issue of Entropy “Quantum Theory and Causation”: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/special_issues/causation I think the reason retrocausality hasn’t gained more converts is that it doesn’t get you a classical ontology as hoped. Here is a paper in that special...

Foundations is not viewed favorably within the physics community as a whole. Quantum computing/information (QI) was only granted its own section heading for the APS March Meeting three years ago. Foundations of physics is included in QI for presentations at the APS Meeting. The plenary talks for...

There are many experiments in foundations of physics. I have two explained in these Insights: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/weak-values-part-1-asking-photons/ https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/weak-values-part-2-quantum-cheshire-cat-experiment/ This Insight references one by...

It's clear something we cherish has to go (free will or causality or locality or realism or objectivity, etc.), since QM works. So, each interpretation is based on a property of Nature the author can live without :-)

Back to the OP, I just read and would recommend this paper: Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Probabilities, and Superdeterminism.

Physics has largely accepted that SR is a principle theory, as you note. We're trying to build on that fact by suggesting it's time to accept QM as a principle theory as well. In fact, they're both based on the same principle. That's the point, but this discussion is not relevant to the OP, so...

The point of the addendum to my post about principle explanation is in response to ’t Hooft’s complaint that QM only gives averages. He thinks that fact entails that something is missing from QM. Our paper shows that average-only conservation is necessarily the best the conservation principle...

Here are some things on superdeterminism you might find interesting: Sabine Hossenfelder Gerard ‘tHooft Gerard ‘tHooft ’t Hooft is upset by the fact that QM only gives us averages, it does not tell us what each particle is doing, i.e., it doesn’t tell us “what reality is.” But, as I pointed...

All of this talk about neutral monism (aka "radical empiricism") does sound a bit "wiggy" for sure. But, foundations opened the door for this with interpretations like QBism. For example, Mermin writes: (cited in our in our Scientific Reports paper and attached here). We reject the subjective...

POs are not necessarily human, they can be actual or hypothetical data collection devices, e.g., the probe that just landed on an asteroid or a hypothetical probe of some spacetime location inside a star. Both Alice and Bob always measure h (##\pm \frac{\hbar}{2}## to be precise) for their spin...

Gauge invariance is related to conservation principles as we show in our example. I don't have any shorter way to say it than I did there. It's really just Zee's presentation (see reference therein) with our interpretation added. We're not suggesting a need for any new physics here, just a...

We argue that the quantum momentum exchanged in an interaction does not itself interact with the collection of shared, self-consistent information constituting the block universe. That is, it does not have a worldline in the block universe. If it did, then you would need quantum exchanges for...

There is no "cut" in principle (although I'm guessing there are technical limitations) meaning QM allows for quantum momentum exchanges (interactions) of any size. No matter the size of the quantum exchange -- the momentum, spatial extent, and temporal duration involved -- the action is h for...

Dynamical explanation in physics is still absolutely legit in our view, it's just not fundamental. In my opinion, anything that can be explained dynamically should be, since our experience is dynamical. I only resort to the more fundamental principle/adynamical/Lagrangian explanation as a last...

The "conservation part" of the mystery of entanglement is not found in the mysteries of time dilation and length contraction. The fact we are pointing out in our Scientific Reports paper (as outlined in the ScienceX News article) is that all of these mysteries stem from the application of the...

You might also like to read this Insight which explains an "unreasonable consequence" of superquantum correlations as presented in Bub and Bub's book. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of superquantum correlations. I started working in foundations in 1994 and didn't hear about superquantum...

I read the Deur arXiv paper and found it interesting. I would like to see their fits of X-ray cluster mass profiles, since that's where MOND fails miserably and MOND also works well with galactic rotation curves. I would like to see their fits of the type Ia SN data and the Planck CMB anisotropy...

Let me review the scholarly process at work here. We have a *community* of scholars who work in a particular field and they have "authorities," e.g., journal editors and contest judges. When you believe you have something of interest to this community, you write it up and submit it too that...

I'll check that out, thnx.

The judges at the Gravity Research Foundation, journal referees, and journal editors disagree with you there, as it received Honorable Mention and was published. You've totally misunderstood what was published. Your analysis is so far off the mark, I would have to reproduce most of the paper...

See this ScienceX News article for a general audience explanation as to why we must obtain probabilistic results for Bell states.

Sorry for the confusion, Peter, let me try one more time to clarify what we did :smile: When you adjoin the FRW and Schwarzschild solutions, the comparative mass can be equal, larger, or smaller, and the matter can be surrounded by vacuum or vice-versa, as I explain in the corresponding AJP...