Hi Jiri,

Thanks for your comments. I think you misunderstood the main idea of my paper. It does not aim to argue the impossibility of the psi-epistemic view based on the Kochen-Specker theorem. It only argues that the psi-epistemic view does not provide a straightforward resolution or a dissolution of the measurement problem, as I clearly…[Read more]

Hi Ken,

Thanks again for your very detailed reply! I learned a lot about the retrocausal quantum models from them. I feel that such models seem more complex than Bohm’s theory. Maybe the reason is that there are no wave functions in them?

Best,
Shan

Hi Matt,

Thanks again for your further comments, most of which I agree. There is only one minor point I disagree. I still think the ontological models framework is more specific than Bell’s framework due to its second assumption. Even in the proof of the CHSH version of Bell’s theorem, although the ontic state λ is a random variable, it still…[Read more]

Thanks Arthur for your very detailed and helpful comments. I have learned much from these comments. I will improve my paper according to them. Best, Shan

Thanks Mark and Ken for your further comments. I have not thought too much on retrocausal models. I would like to know whether quantum randomness is also inherent in these models, and how these models account for the randomness of measurement results. Best, Shan

Thanks Mark and Ken for your very helpful comments. I will need more time to think about them. For now I think Ken’s explanation seems to require the deny of the existence of free fill and essential randomness and have to resort to superdeterminism. Best, Shan

Thanks for your comments, Kelvin. It seems that you did not really understand my solution, which is different from the solution discussed in your paper. In my solution, there are no “zombie tails”. The observer being in the superposition has only one mind with the unique mental content. The key point is that according to my assumption about viv…[Read more]

Thanks for your further clarification, Peter. I still think that your assumption that the relative positions of the particles determine the measurement outcome requires a wholly new hidden-variables theory which is different from Bohm’s theory.

Consider your example. If after being measured by the Stern-Gerlach magnet, the two separated wave…[Read more]

Thanks, Aurélien. I will have a look at your reply. Best, Shan

Thanks for your insightful comments, Peter. I should have made my argument more accurate. I agree that if assuming the measurement outcome supervenes on a pattern among a number of Bohmian particles, then Bohm’s theory can solve the measurement problem. But I think the assumption seems inconsistent with SQM. Let me restate my argument more…[Read more]

Thanks Mark,

I don’t know either. Hey out there, please tell us what you don’t like about PTI.
But please let your critique be based on an open-minded reading of the published literature, unlike some critiques out there 🙂

Hi Peter, thanks a lot for your very helpful comments. Your questions are closely related to the understanding of RDM (random discontinuous motion) of particles. RDM gives an ontological interpretation of the wave function, but the instantaneous picture cannot explain interference and measurement. To explain the former, we still need the law of…[Read more]

It is not necessary for quantum mechanics to be local to provide consistency with relativity.
If QM is taken as describing a pre-spacetime domain from which spacetime emerges, there is no conflict.
I provide such an account in PTI (e.g. http://www.cambridge.org/9780521764155)

Thanks Rod,

I certainly would not dismiss a model simply because it implied a block universe. I have had extensive discussions with the Relational Block World folks (Mark and Michael), and while that’s not my favored approach, it’s not because it’s a block world.

My concern about the model you’re proposing is that while it describes dynamical…[Read more]

Hi Rod,

Have you thought any more about the block universe question? It seems to me that with the initial and final BC, all spacetime events are ‘set’ and therefore we must have a block world here. I’d be curious to know whether you agree.

Thanks,
Ruth