A stronger proof of nonlocality, or what?

[Fra]

If the presumed map of reality "explains" why perceptables like detctor clicks happen?

Then what motivates/infers this map of reality in the first place? Isnt that inferred FROM detector clicks? thus arent these indistinguiahable events quite primary? Rather begging to be explained in terms of something else?

What is it we should explain, and in terms of what? For me the heart of the empirical meaauremnt thery is that the map should be "constructable" from pereceptables witha minimum of ad hoc structures

/Fredrik

 

[Demystifier]

Are you thus conceptually "ok" with considering something "real" that different observers fail to agree upon, because its "solipsistic" in nature?

Yes. For example, if I dream that I can fly, then my ability to fly is not real, but the fact that I have this dream is real.

 

[Demystifier]

If the presumed map of reality "explains" why perceptables like detctor clicks happen?

Then what motivates/infers this map of reality in the first place? Isnt that inferred FROM detector clicks? thus arent these indistinguiahable events quite primary? Rather begging to be explained in terms of something else?

What is it we should explain, and in terms of what? For me the heart of the empirical meaauremnt thery is that the map should be "constructable" from perceptables with a minimum of ad hoc structures

In principle, I could agree. But the history of physics teaches us that non-perceptibles can have a strong explanatory power. For example, Boltzmann explained thermodynamics in terms of non-percetible atoms. Denying atoms by Mach made sense at that time, but denying atoms today would seem too radical.

 

[vanhees71]

Just the opposite, it is quantum and real, in the same sense in which particle trajectories in Bohmian interpretation are quantum and real.It's not an observable, in the sense that it is not described by an operator in the (rigged) Hilbert space, if that's what you meant.

Now we are back at this endless debate, what's "real". You have to define, what you mean by the term "realism", so that one can know what you are talking about. Obviously, since Bohmian trajectories are not observable, for you something non-observable can be real. That's a very strange notion of "real" for me ;-).

 

[gentzen]

Now we are back at this endless debate, what's "real". You have to define, what you mean by the term "realism", so that one can know what you are talking about. Obviously, since Bohmian trajectories are not observable, for you something non-observable can be real. That's a very strange notion of "real" for me ;-).

No, we are not, because Demystifier just clarified that his "solipsist HV" are just as real or unreal as Bohmian trajectories. And saying that Bohmian trajectories are real is independent of that endless debate too, because that is also just a clarification on the level of the theory, similar to saying that electric fields are real, but vector potentials are not.

 

[Demystifier]

Now we are back at this endless debate, what's "real". You have to define, what you mean by the term "realism", so that one can know what you are talking about. Obviously, since Bohmian trajectories are not observable, for you something non-observable can be real. That's a very strange notion of "real" for me ;-).

In realistic interpretations, the word "real" (or ontic) is a primitive notion, its meaning is taken intuitively and cannot be precisely defined in terms of something more elementary.

Likewise, in instrumental interpretations, the word "instrument" (or measuring apparatus) is a primitive notion, its meaning is taken intuitively and cannot be precisely defined in terms of something more elementary.

Some physicists, like me, don't like the idea that measuring apparatus is primitive, so they replace it with another primitive notion that seems more acceptable to them. Different interpretations take different concepts as primitive. It's a matter of personal preference which concept makes more sense as a primitive concept that will not be defined precisely.

It is logically impossible to completely remove primitive concepts. Any definition of a concept uses some words, which one may want to define in terms or other words, which one may want to define in terms of other other words, which ..., but eventually this has to stop somewhere and leave some words undefined. The words that are left undefined are called primitive.

 

[Fra]

In principle, I could agree. But the history of physics teaches us that non-perceptibles can have a strong explanatory power. For example, Boltzmann explained thermodynamics in terms of non-percetible atoms. Denying atoms by Mach made sense at that time, but denying atoms today would seem too radical.

The flow I entertain is

(1) perceptibles -> abduction of best explanation = non-perceptibles ~ agents map of reality

(2) The map of reality guesses the future has as a guiding value to the agents actions. So the agents follows the map... wether right or wrong. This means noone denies the map, or questions the map as its already by construction optimal. A variant of your "non-perceptibles have strong explanatory power. It explains litteraly at least the agenta actions. To thate tent i can agree.

The question is... what is the process by which the input evolves the map. This for me the heart of the matter.how the map evolves in reaponse to percetiples. And that different have slightly different maps are not one bit strange. Their maps are "real" in your sense..

So of the bohmian picture of HV and whatever deteemines their evolution is to be associated to the observers "map" then its getting in harmony with how i view the agents microstructure [which encodes the"map"]

/Fredrik