re:Re: Many Fermis Interpretation Paradox -- So why aren't they here?

From: Marchal Bruno <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:13:52 +0200 (MET DST)

Saibal Mitra wrote:

>Bruno wrote:
>
>At 16:25 +0200 11/10/1996, Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
>>>You can still have realism, but it must be the >>case that at least some
>of
>>>the things we think of as ``real physical objects´´ >>like e.g. electrons
>are
>>>not real.
>
>
>>What would that mean? What would be real? >Even in my thesis, electrons
>>are supposed to have some degree of reality like >relative stability
>>as mind pattern in normal machine dreams (1->person plural histories)
>>for example.
>
>Well, his theory is rather complicated, but he starts from a deterministic
>theory formulated in terms of primordial variables, that do represent ``real
>things´´. Although I don't think that his ideas are necessarily correct, it
>does give food for thought.

<snip>


By Bell and Kochen & Specker theorems those primordial variable
should be non local and contextual, or 't Hooft should be clear about
the different (from QM) experimental predictions his theory gives.
Perhaps I miss something.
Of course you know I believe indeterminism is a consequence of
Mechanism, so 't Hooft move seems to me without clear purpose. I mean
even without QM, I expect verifiable non-locality and contextuality,
or Many-"Worlds".
Received on Thu Oct 24 2002 - 05:14:40 PDT