minkwe wrote:QM is both local and incomplete.
minkwe wrote:You'd need to add in the assumption that
is ontological to arrive at non-locality.
FrediFizzx wrote:minkwe wrote:Though a better answer to the question at least from the EPR perspective could be. "No, it is local and incomplete, rather than complete and non-local". We don't have to accept a priori that it is non-local. In the example of two halves of a dollar bill sent off to two people. We do not suggest that non-locality is at play when one person opens the envelope.
I think that is exactly right. For those that think QM is a complete theory of Nature, then it is non-local. For those (like us) that think QM is incomplete, then it is a local theory.
We are in overall agreement here, but using different emphases to express some of the same things.
The point is that if we assume QM to be a complete theory of Nature (in the EPR sense), or equivalently interpret
ontologically, then non-locality of QM cannot be averted.
On the other hand, if we assume QM to be an incomplete theory of Nature, or equivalently interpret
epistemically, then the question of non-locality (or any other voodoo) does not even arise.
But here is a conceptual puzzle:
If we do interpret
epistemically and view it as merely encapsulating contextual information as Unruh does, then why such a contextual (read "subjective") information
is governed by a precise, unique, and
non-contextual (read "objective") dynamical equation like the time-dependent Schrodinger equation?