Where is the quantum system prior to measurement?

[gentzen]

Remaining agnostic on what route is taken renders a 3D model incomplete.

then either our model is not a complete description of 'the physical reality'

I admire your persistence. It may not be obvious to you, but ironclad logic loses its force when a flawed assumption is included. ... Probably you'll never be able to make sense of quantum theory.

My impression is that Lynch101 ignores the connection of "complete description" with the original thermodynamical riddles: If there were a more complete description, then there must be more local degrees of freedom, but then you have to explain why those local degrees of freedom don't show up in the entropy.
OK, an atom actually has internal degrees of freedom, so why are those invisible in the entropy? Because their excitation energy is so high that they would only start to contribute to the entropy in a really really hot plasma.
But those unique paths he wants the interpretation to describe, why would those not constitute degrees of freedom, and why would those not show-up in the entropy?
OK, the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation actually has such paths, so why are those invisible in the entropy? Because those are not local degrees of freedom.

 

[Lynch101]

I admire your persistence. It may not be obvious to you, but ironclad logic loses its force when a flawed assumption is included. You have achieved reductio ad absurdum of the idea that quantum theory can be understood in terms of quantum "objects" (or what you call "systems"). Probably you'll never be able to make sense of quantum theory.

In effect all I have done is set out some very basic principles of 3D modelling. From this we can deduce/infer certain rules which must apply to anything which operates within such a model. One such rule relating to the propagation of anything from one region to another spatially separated region.

For a complete 3D model we should be able to represent everything in the universe at all times. If we don't specify i.e. remain agnostic on the unique path/route of propagation taken by anything within our 3D model then we are left with an incomplete 3D model. If we say that no unique path is taken, then either that 'thing' is not in the universe or it operates in other dimensions.

 

[PeterDonis]

It's not simply a matter of opinion. It's the application of basic principles of 3D modeling to the experimental set-ups and making inferences/deductions about the implications.

This claim about "basic principles of 3D modeling" is just your opinion.

Physicists also commit to the propagation of causal influences at a finite speed, don't they?

No. Not all interpretations of QM require causal influences to "propagate".

 

[PeterDonis]

I admire your persistence. It may not be obvious to you, but ironclad logic loses its force when a flawed assumption is included. You have achieved reductio ad absurdum of the idea that quantum theory can be understood in terms of quantum "objects" (or what you call "systems"). Probably you'll never be able to make sense of quantum theory.

And this seems like a good note on which to close the thread.