Astronomers don't really talk about such unobserved things. Perhaps astrophysicists do, and when they do they do it with a grain of salt, but astronomers don't. One way to frame such questions is to ask what would another observer beyond the horizon observe, if she was there?Quantum Waver said:In a broader sense, what about when astronomers talk about the larger universe outside our light cone, or the physics inside a black hole?
One poster in another thread claimed that microphysical objects were non-mathematical (not describable by math, ie wavefunction isn't real). I think they were a QBist. I would put it differently. Quanta aren't particles (classically speaking), they're waves in fields, so their values are spread out until a measurement is made (observationally speaking at least). But whatever the case, something real on the fundamental level gives rise to devices, measurements, observers and makes the formalism work.physika said:Right.
just Counterfactual Definiteness, not to be real or not.
or there have to say; is unreal but exist...
Couldn't agree more!Quantum Waver said:Quanta aren't particles (classically speaking), they're waves in fields, so their values are spread out until a measurement is made