Einstein was actually against what is now termed “objective collapse” models, not Bohr’s “shut up and calculate”. And yes, the hints are increasingly pointing toward something along the lines of RQM.
Einstein was perfectly right about a correct physics containing no randomness
Maybe you should try playing your own rationalist’s taboo with the term “randomness”. For example, if you define it instrumentally as inability to predict an outcome of a measurement, then it trivially goes through in the MWI model. What’s your definition?
no mysteriously-non-communicating FTL influences
Try similarly tabooing “influence”. It is likely that you will find that “non-communicating influence” is devoid of meaning (it’s a piece of logic disconnected from physics, using your favorite duality).
Einstein was actually against what is now termed “objective collapse” models, not Bohr’s “shut up and calculate”. And yes, the hints are increasingly pointing toward something along the lines of RQM.
Maybe you should try playing your own rationalist’s taboo with the term “randomness”. For example, if you define it instrumentally as inability to predict an outcome of a measurement, then it trivially goes through in the MWI model. What’s your definition?
Try similarly tabooing “influence”. It is likely that you will find that “non-communicating influence” is devoid of meaning (it’s a piece of logic disconnected from physics, using your favorite duality).
rolls eyes at RQM (due to physicists trying to play silly semantic games that don’t actually translate into any coherent epistemology)
Okay. “Without causal graphs that violate the Markov condition.”
See above.
If someone could draw this graph for me for the case of the purported EPR FTL influence without relying on objective collapse, I’d appreciate it.