When you say such things as "I am in disbelief that you still try to cling to this idea that PP somehow is the cause of the appearance of nonlocality.", life seems rather tough. You cannot blame me for previously thinking that you flatly deny that PP is a source of nonlocality.Actually I've mentioned several times that the nonlocality of PP is not the same as VBI. You just never recognized that distinction earlier.
So we disagree on this point.Maaneli said:Such a replacement is just simply wrong, as I have already explained.
So we disagree on this point.Maaneli said:Then you obviously didn't understand the argument.
With all due respect, complaining of insults, coming from you - that's pretty rich. And I guess there is a difference between "reading up" and looking at one paragraph in my post (that does not mean that you owe me anything, even reading this paragraph). As for dBB, I explained my position in post #69. Your reply (the beginning of post #70), where you somewhat modified the statement that I was doubtful about did not look relevant to VBI. My understanding is, to get VBI, say, in dBB, you need to add some postulate to unitary evolution. Or do you believe you can get VBI in dBB using just unitary evolution? You said that in the pilot wave theory "you can easily account for VBI due to the branching of wavefunctions after a measurement interaction", but is this compatible with unitary evolution?Maaneli said:Now you're just being disingenuous here. I never ever suggested considering a QMMT that is not empirically consistent with all current experiments (and all current experiments are really what one has any rational reason to care about, not every "thinkable" experiment). In fact I repeatedly said to consider a QMMT like deBB or GRW which are empirically equivalent to SQM, but are NOT based on ad hoc and imprecise postulates about "measurements". Yet, you simply still refuse to study those theories well enough to understand how they describe VBI. If you do not bother to understand why I propose deBB and GRW as counterexamples to your belief that "PP is a cause of VBI and that rejection of PP implies no VBI", then I will not bother to spend anymore time talking to you about this. It is simply an insult for you to suggest to me to read up on KSP, when you won't even take the time, at my suggestion, to read up on deBB and GRW approaches to VBI.
As for GRW, I just don't have any motivation to study it, as its collapse postulate (or is it postulates?) seems extremely arbitrary.
OK, I outlined my position, so perhaps there is no point in reiterating it. So we disagree on what is grounded and what is ungrounded.Maaneli said:I say they are ungrounded because you have no idea yet of a locally causal theory that would explain the nonideal EPRB correlations as accurately as the various QM formulations (or for that matter any of the other experimentally tested atomic, nuclear, and high energy physical phenomena that the QM formulations can describe), and yet you seem to think locally causal theories are more plausible or as plausible in correctness as the varoius QM formulations. That to me is an ungrounded belief.
I guess our discussion illustrates that the issue of local causality in the context of SFED is not trivial. I believe you also learned something new about this issue in the course of the discussion. So maybe the discussion was not useless.Maaneli said:The issue of local causality arose in this thread because of your mistaken belief (which apparently was not based on any evidence) that SFED is fundamentally a locally causal theory. Certainly it has been established that KSP has no relevance to SFED, especially in the idea of making SFED into a locally causal theory.
And for me, the question remains whether Barut was right when he introduced configuration space in his theory.