Reply To: Why Bohmian theory?

#2869
AvatarRobert Griffiths
Participant

Dear Richard and Travis,

Due to some health problems I only just got around to reading your exchange, which I found quite interesting; this is the sort of thing which a workshop of this type should facilitate. I hope to add a second comment, but let me start off with the first, addressed, Richard, to you. In your most recent #2815 you say:

“I maintain that quantum theory may be precisely formulated with no talk of observers or measurements and can be shown to be free of conceptual problems (no measurement problem, no superluminal influences, no tension with relativity, no problematic quantum field-theoretic ontology, no Schrodinger cats or Wigner’s friends, etc.).”

With which I am in perfect agreement. But you didn’t give us the reference to where we can find this precise formulation. It doesn’t sound quite like the proposal mentioned towards the end of your open_question_on_quantum_physics_and_the_nature_of_reality

“…a quantum state never describes reality, even incompletely: instead, it has a twofold role in offering authoritative advice to a physically situated agent (which may be either an individual or a community).”

and which you yourself admit is incomplete.

Bob Griffiths

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.