"Single-world interpretations.... cannot be self-consistent"

[Denis]

My problem with dBB is twofold. The aforementioned unobservability and also the point of its formulation is to provide a consistent reality but (as I understand dBB which may be quite wrong!) the necessity of causal propagation of pilot waves FTL and back in time undermine the very objectivity of the reality one is trying to assert. If the future may update the present then the present state of reality is contingent and hypothetical.

Unobservability is not an issue for me. Reality is not obliged to be completely observable, in all details.
FTL is necessary in every realistic or causal interpretation. Which is the point of Bell's theorem, who was aware of dBB theory, and that it requires FTL, and he wanted to show that this is not an argument against dBB, because it is necessary in any realistic causal interpretation.
But there is nothing backward in time in dBB theory. It simply does not have any fundamental Lorentz symmetry. Effective Lorentz symmetry, which gives no FTL signalling, is unproblematic. But the ontological description requires a hidden preferred frame. What is the problem? Yet another hidden variable in a hidden variable interpretation.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.