I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems that he mostly uses QM without really considering GR. Without a proper theory of Quantum Gravity, it is difficult to know what approach yields correct results. Ronald
On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote: > > > Anyone want to give this a try and comment? > > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf > > He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse > view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that > setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined. > > Bruno > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
