- #1
msumm21
- 218
- 16
- TL;DR Summary
- Is it true that locally-mediated, future dependent interpretations of QM are relatively unpopular in the foundations community? If so, why?
Just read this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.04313.pdf
At first it had me thinking that locally mediated, future dependent interpretations are the way to go. Yet it admits these seem to be rare relative to other types of interpretations. Any good intuition or reasons why this is rare in the mainstream?
One thought that maybe part of this discussion. Do such models rule anything out at all? I guess if we allow signals to travel both ways in time, at c then theoretically a signal can go anywhere by "zig zagging" through space time: forward in time, back, forward again, back again, ...? So then local wouldn't mean anything? OR is there something that rules this out in such interpretations?
At first it had me thinking that locally mediated, future dependent interpretations are the way to go. Yet it admits these seem to be rare relative to other types of interpretations. Any good intuition or reasons why this is rare in the mainstream?
One thought that maybe part of this discussion. Do such models rule anything out at all? I guess if we allow signals to travel both ways in time, at c then theoretically a signal can go anywhere by "zig zagging" through space time: forward in time, back, forward again, back again, ...? So then local wouldn't mean anything? OR is there something that rules this out in such interpretations?