🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec21.131354.29282@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
[...]
> 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. [...]

The point of Bell's inequality and the proof that quantum mechanics
violates it is that something nonlocal must happen, if you assume that
the wave function you use to compute probabilities changes instantaneously.
This is independent of what interpretation of QM you prefer and independent
of the physicality of the wave function. I say `the wave function you
use to compute probabilities', because there may be no change in the wave
function. They may all exist simultaneously and you only choose a different
one as the result of an observation. I could care less about the metaphysics.
The point is that the *calculations* in QM produce nonlocal predictions as
a consequence of the assumption that the wave function you use in
computations changes instantaneously.

This *physical* effect of the computations suggests to me that there is
a physical wave function and that it does *not* change instantaneously.

Paul Budnik