🚀 go-pugleaf

larsj@kih.no (Lars M. Johansen) writes:

>After reading your reply, I understand that I misunderstood your position.
>I agree with you that observer A will not sense any collapse of wavefuntion
>due to observations done by B.
>
>I wrote that
>
>>>In the same vein, COLLAPSE in the QM-wavefuntion does not AUTOMATICALLY
>>>imply nonlocal effects.
>
>and you answered
>
>>It depends on whether the wave function is a physical quantity, or
>>a subjective quantity.
>
>Do I sense a contradiction here?

No, I am only considering the possibilities. *If* the wave function is
physical, *then* instantaneous collapse implies that something nonlocal
is happening. If it is not physical, then its collapse does not imply
anything nonlocal.

I agree with you that the wave function is not physical. However, I
admit that I could be proved wrong.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY