I am only saying that if there would be some faster-than-light causality, we should be able to do it in a controllable way - sending information ... but we cannot - so this way of thinking is incorrect, this option is invalid.

I am a mathematician and my specialism is not even mathematical physics, but mathematical statistics and probability theory.

So be one - instead of enforcing human time-asymmetric intuition bias, which was shown to be wrong ... just look at mathematics of accepted theories we successfully use from QFT to GR: with time/CPT symmetry at their hearts.

Don't make up "particles in past, fields in future"-like hypotheses you cannot defend, but just accept mathematics.

E.g. in general relativity there is nothing special in time - just one of 4 directions of spacetime, chosen locally, e.g. switching with space below black hole horizon ...

To understand statistical properties, the safest assumption is (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy - for example it is at heart of statistical physics in its uniform/Boltzmann distributions.

To include time-symmetry in such models, we need to do statistical physics for time-symmetric objects, like paths - the simplest such model is uniform path ensemble - MERW.

This is exactly your field: statistics and probability theory, but I haven't seen any meritorious arguments about it - only some vague criticism like "Yet you have no solution for the measurement problem" - without any clarification, elaboration, even after asking multiple times and waiting for a month.

you do not respond to my comments

I am trying to address all your comments, please just repeat if I miss something crucial. Which do you think I have missed?

It seems that you do not realise that the Schrödinger cat paradox is an unsolved problem for creating a coherent mathematical model of quantum mechanics

Please specify where do you see a problem here?

Transferability of quantum properties to macroscopic physics means they are more universal - that the search for classical-quantum boundary is doomed to failure.

Example of universal theory is statistical physics, like uniform path ensemble (MERW), e.g. predicting rho ~ sin^2 stationary density even for macroscopic [0,1] potential well ... but we don't observe such "quantum" localization e.g. in gas tanks - having rather rho ~ const density.

Of course, if we accept predeterminism, then we do have a coherent picture. But to my taste, not an attractive one.

To make it attractive, it again requires replacing human intuition bias with mathematics: Lagrangian mechanics has 3 mathematically equivalent formulations, predeterminism is for forward in time E-L evolution.

Using equivalent (time-symmetric) action optimization formulation/perspective (

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action ): history is optimized for conditions in the past and in the future, we get explanation why initial state of our Universe was already prepared for all future measurements.

Just be mathematician - replace human bias with acceptance of mathematics.

I am only saying that if there would be some faster-than-light causality, we should be able to do it in a controllable way - sending information ... but we cannot - so this way of thinking is incorrect, this option is invalid.

[quote]I am a mathematician and my specialism is not even mathematical physics, but mathematical statistics and probability theory.[/quote]

So be one - instead of enforcing human time-asymmetric intuition bias, which was shown to be wrong ... just look at mathematics of accepted theories we successfully use from QFT to GR: with time/CPT symmetry at their hearts.

Don't make up "particles in past, fields in future"-like hypotheses you cannot defend, but just accept mathematics.

E.g. in general relativity there is nothing special in time - just one of 4 directions of spacetime, chosen locally, e.g. switching with space below black hole horizon ...

To understand statistical properties, the safest assumption is (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_maximum_entropy - for example it is at heart of statistical physics in its uniform/Boltzmann distributions.

To include time-symmetry in such models, we need to do statistical physics for time-symmetric objects, like paths - the simplest such model is uniform path ensemble - MERW.

This is exactly your field: statistics and probability theory, but I haven't seen any meritorious arguments about it - only some vague criticism like "Yet you have no solution for the measurement problem" - without any clarification, elaboration, even after asking multiple times and waiting for a month.

[quote]you do not respond to my comments[/quote]

I am trying to address all your comments, please just repeat if I miss something crucial. Which do you think I have missed?

[quote]It seems that you do not realise that the Schrödinger cat paradox is an unsolved problem for creating a coherent mathematical model of quantum mechanics[/quote]

Please specify where do you see a problem here?

Transferability of quantum properties to macroscopic physics means they are more universal - that the search for classical-quantum boundary is doomed to failure.

Example of universal theory is statistical physics, like uniform path ensemble (MERW), e.g. predicting rho ~ sin^2 stationary density even for macroscopic [0,1] potential well ... but we don't observe such "quantum" localization e.g. in gas tanks - having rather rho ~ const density.

[quote]Of course, if we accept predeterminism, then we do have a coherent picture. But to my taste, not an attractive one.[/quote]

To make it attractive, it again requires replacing human intuition bias with mathematics: Lagrangian mechanics has 3 mathematically equivalent formulations, predeterminism is for forward in time E-L evolution.

Using equivalent (time-symmetric) action optimization formulation/perspective ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action ): history is optimized for conditions in the past and in the future, we get explanation why initial state of our Universe was already prepared for all future measurements.

Just be mathematician - replace human bias with acceptance of mathematics.