And they were probably right about “action-at-a-distance” being impossible (i.e. locality), but it took General Relativity to get a functioning theory of gravity that satisfied locality.
(Incidentally, one of the main reasons I believe the many worlds interpretation is that you need something like that for quantum mechanics to satisfy locality.)
All interpretations of QM make the same predictions, so if “satisfying locality” is an empirically meaningful requirement, they are all equivalent.
But locality is more than one thing, because everything is more than one thing. Many interpretations allow nonlocal X where X might be a correlation ,but not an action or a signal.
Yeah, it’s not empirically meaningful over interpretations of QM (at least the ones which don’t make weird observable-in-principle predictions). Still meaningful as part of a simplicity prior, the same way that e.g. rejecting a simulation hypothesis is meaningful.
And they were probably right about “action-at-a-distance” being impossible (i.e. locality), but it took General Relativity to get a functioning theory of gravity that satisfied locality.
(Incidentally, one of the main reasons I believe the many worlds interpretation is that you need something like that for quantum mechanics to satisfy locality.)
All interpretations of QM make the same predictions, so if “satisfying locality” is an empirically meaningful requirement, they are all equivalent.
But locality is more than one thing, because everything is more than one thing. Many interpretations allow nonlocal X where X might be a correlation ,but not an action or a signal.
Yeah, it’s not empirically meaningful over interpretations of QM (at least the ones which don’t make weird observable-in-principle predictions). Still meaningful as part of a simplicity prior, the same way that e.g. rejecting a simulation hypothesis is meaningful.