🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov20.182803.14288@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
> In article <366@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> >... QM does not predict
> >the delays to be expected in tests of Bell's inequality. If these arguments
> >hold, this will provide the incentive to do the experiments to measure these
> >delays. QM needs to be extended to predict these delays and the only way
> >to do this is through experiment. My expectation is that these experiments
> >will provide the first measures of the structure of quantum collapse. I
> >think it will be impossible to account for this structure with a continuous
> >model. 
> 
> Sounds like an untestable hypothesis.  What experiment could possibly
> decide whether only countably many reals occur in nature?

The discussion on L-S has apparently misled you. I believe that the
space-time manifold is discrete, i. e. not continuous. There are many
ways to discriminate between a continuous and discrete model and this
has nothing to do with countability. Perhaps the most dramatic is that
special relativity can only be approximately true. Einsten himself
thought that it may not be possible to base physics on continuous structures
and recognized that this meant all existing theories including his could
only be approximations to a deeper underlying theory.

Paul Budnik