Post #3124428
2026-03-23 07:54 UTC
@internic@mathstodon.xyz @davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz @dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz
Well, that's the thing: They are not theories, but rather interpretations. The moment they stop being a blanket reproduction of QM, they stop being interpretations of QM.
If something was to be an actual theory in this area, it would need to experimentally supplant QM itself.
Replies (1)
-
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz 2026-03-23 08:20
@androcat@toot.cat Yes; he said "empirically-testable", so are you saying there's reason to disbelieve that Diósi-Penrose claim? (I'm not arguing, I'm just trying to clarify.) Because if it *is* true, then indeed it would be a modification of standard QM, as you say. @internic@mathstodon.xyz @davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz