🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <432@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
|> [...]
|> Any one whe has read many of my postings is well aware that I am more
|> than willing to question established ideas if I think there is a *serious*
|> reason for doing so.  [...]

I think that anytime an well accepted concept is on the rocks
is a time for serious questioning of all the other well established
concepts that are involved.  I think it's just as likely that the
mathematical operation of *multiplication* is inapplicable to the
QM context as it is that locality is violated.  I have no reason
accept either over the other.  *Both* may be wrong.  As could any
number of other _very_ fundamental assumptions.  What specific reasons
(other than it's what everyone else is doing) do you claim that Bell's
results disprove locality instead of disproving other assumptions?

|> [...]          Bell's result is disturbing. [...]

Yep, it is.  It means that *something* about our fundamental concepts
is wrong.  It proves to have little to say about *what* is wrong.

|> [...]                                         It is clear to me that
|> the first thing to question is the assumption that the wave function
|> changes instantaneously.  [...]

This doesn't trouble me at all - since I believe the wavefunction to
be an abstraction it changes whenever the abstract situation does.
Abstractions can change as quickly as they like.

-- 
J. Giles