AFAIK gravity was indeed considered at least woo-ish back in the day, e.g.:
Newton’s theory of gravity (developed in his Principia), for example, seemed to his contemporaries to assume that bodies could act upon one another across empty space, without touching one another, or without any material connection between them. This so-called action-at-a-distance was held to be impossible in the mechanical philosophy. Similarly, in the Opticks he developed the idea that bodies interacted with one another by means of their attractive and repulsive forces—again an idea which was dismissed by mechanical philosophers as non-mechanical and even occult.
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.
AFAIK gravity was indeed considered at least woo-ish back in the day, e.g.:
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.
Zero was considered weird and occult for a while