I wade into this dispute with trepidation, because I think it is for the most part incomprehensible. But I believe I see one place where there was a miscommunication and I hope to clear it up.
Godfrey Kurtz wrote, to Bruno Marchal: > You ARE doing something speculative whether you admit it or not! And I > don't really have to study your argument because > it is derived from premises that, you already admitted, are > incompatible with the conclusions you claim. What is this incompatibility? I believe he means it to be the following. Bruno had written: > This I knew. The collapse is hardly compatible with comp (and thus > YD). Even Bohm de Broglie theory, is incompatible with YD. And yet, Bruno claims that his methods will lead to a derivation of physics, which as far as we know includes QM. Godfrey sees the previous quote from Bruno as indicating that his "Yes Doctor" starting point is *incompatible* with QM. This is the contradiction that he sees. I'll stop here and invite Godfrey to comment on whether this is the admission of incompatibility between premises and conclusions that he was referring to above. Hal Finney