Dear Jean,
so BM is “a real theory”? As opposed to what? I also find your use of the attribute “rational” pretty strange. I suppose you would describe yourself as a rationalist, and I do like your book with Sokal on his hoax. But I think you are just mistaken that rationality is tied to some kind of ontology (as in that silly slogan that quantum mechanics must be about “something”). Rational thought is as much about relations as it is about things. So a scientific theory like quantum mechanics strives to build relations between contingent facts, and to understand special instances from overarching principles. None of this needs hypothetical mass points to be “realistic” or “rational”.
In contrast, Bohmian mechanics contains a lot of stuff which is highly arbitrary, because unrelatable to experience. No rational argument about these aspects of the theory seems possible, and surely these features cannot be called realistic (in the broad sense) either.
I was also puzzled by your description of BM as “deterministic”. You have that massive source of randomness stuck into the initial conditions by the Maker of the Unverse. That is a construction you can make in any probabilistic theory so in that way every probabilistic theory is deterministic. So even if you can argue that our universe just sits on one trajectory and still displays quantum randomness almost surely, the “almost” is with respect to God’s measure. So your randomness assumption can be rephrased as a “typicality” condition. Again you can do this in any probabilistic theory. So a more accurate statement would be that in BM randomness is shifted to -\infty.
The “perfect clarity” is another puzzle to me. Every concrete question I ever followed up on in this theory ended in a heap of evasions. So I suppose you mean the sort of clarity you derive from scripture, in this case maybe the gospel “Unspeakables” by St. John, from which you offer readings in your long text.
With best my regards,
Reinhard
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.