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.

Suppose you are a virtual person, programmed by me and living in a virtual
environment. You do some experiments to find the laws of physics. You try to
break up things and look what they are ``made of´´. Would you ever discover
how the pentium processor works if you proceed this way?

Similarly would you ever discover anything about neurotransmitters and
neurons while you are asleep (and dreaming about doing experiments).

It is more likely that you would be stuck with theories that promote
nonexisting artefacts of  the virtual world to real physical entities.

Saibal




----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Verzonden: donderdag 10 oktober 2002 14:55
Onderwerp: Re: Many Fermis Interpretation Paradox -- So why aren't they
here?


>
>
> If Gerard 't Hooft's  deterministic account of Quantum field
> is both realist and Lorentz invariant, it would contradict Bell's theorem
> or Kochen and Specker theorem, or GHZ (Greenberger, Horn, Zeilinger),
> ... or it would be equivalent with Everett (accepting that quantum
> contextuality + realism implies the "many-things").
>
> Bruno
>
>
> Original message by Saibal Mitra:
>
> >----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> >Van: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Aan: "Tim May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Verzonden: vrijdag 4 oktober 2002 18:13
> >Onderwerp: Re: Many Fermis Interpretation Paradox -- So why aren't they
> >here?
> >
> >
> >>  At 9:36 -0700 1/10/2002, Tim May wrote:
> >>
> >>  >MWI looks, then, like just another variant of "modal realism." To
> >>  >wit, there IS a universe in which unicorns exist, and another in
> >>  >which Germany won the Second World War, but these universes are
> >>  >forever and completely out of touch with us.
> >>
> >>  Not quite due to possible interferences. We do have empirical
evidences
> >>  for those "worlds" imo. (if only the two slits + Bell or better GHZ)
> >
> >But quantum field theory can be derived from a completely classical
> >deterministic theory. See.e.g.:
> >
> >1) Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System
> >
> >Class.Quant.Grav. 16 (1999) 3263-3279
> >
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9903084
> >
> >
> >2) Quantum Mechanics and Determinism
> >
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105105
> >
> >3) How Does God Play Dice? (Pre-)Determinism at the Planck Scale
> >
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219
>
>


Reply via email to