Post #3124429
2026-03-23 08:20 UTC
@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
Replies (1)
-
@androcat@toot.cat 2026-03-23 08:23
@dougmerritt@mathstodon.xyz @internic@mathstodon.xyz @davidsuculum@mathstodon.xyz I am more saying that it is a moving target. Like, when Bell found something that could be tested (proving Bohr incorrect about locality), the goal posts moved. A lot of interpretations became ex-interpretations, and soon after they were re-tuned to the new set of goal posts.