Dear Stefan Weckbach,
Great to see you again at FQXi!
I enjoyed your essay, especially the metaphorical finish, and agree that you focus on a major problem of assumptions and the logic of them. You and I are in agreement on so many things, so please forgive me if I disagree with some of your points.
Your focus is appropriately on logic, and the current state of quantum mechanics, exemplified by Bell's theorem, is related to d'Espagnat's contention that physics is based on realism, deductive logic, and locality. The Bell'ists have, in general, decided to keep logic at the expense of local realism. I suspect that we really should keep local realism and question logic. A number of essays here point out contradictions *between* GR and QM and contradictions *within* GR and QM and I contend that the brain's logical maps are not absolutely holistic but instead, as you say,
"personal beliefs and ... emotions can trigger us to believe obviously inconsistent things."
I agree with you, and see the logical maps that we use to 'cover' the world as partially overlapping in places and almost orthogonal in other places. From Joy Christian to Anton Zeilinger and all points in between there is confusion, contradiction, and incompleteness [at least as seen by others]. Given this state of illogic, I choose to retain my belief in local realism at the expense of a belief that anyone has a completely logical interpretation that contradicts local realism. For my picture of how quantum theory is based on particle AND wave, please read my essay
The Nature of the Wave Function
I would appreciate your comments on it. [I yesterday added a very brief synopsis/comment as to how particles arise in my theory.]
Of course, as you say,
"subjective certainty [which I have] for the existence of something is not the same as the presence of logical necessity [which I have not] for the existence of something." Nevertheless, I find many reasons to assume that the particle AND wave exist. If instead, one considers the Copenhagen interpretation of particle OR wave, then, as you point out, to ask 'when' the "thing" decided to be particle or wave is to logically conclude (in 'delayed choice' experiments) that the 'thing' "knows in advance which information you want to squeeze out of it."
You then treat the logic that follows.
Begin with "quantum mechanics tells us that particles can be in many different states and locations at the same time." But we only and always find them in only ONE state and ONE position at the same time, so we might question this. I offer an alternative interpretation in my essay. I consider that the 'solutions' to Schrodinger's equation typically describe the allowed energy states for given boundary conditions, and any such solution is a possible permitted state. Which solution actually occurs [lacking a noise-free environment] is probabilistic and is also a function of energy, since the greater the energy the less likely the state will occur. If the equation depends on time, then the probability varies with time. It's not deterministic. So I disagree that belief in particles AND waves is contradictory, as I show in my essay.
Having concluded that there *is* a contradiction, you do a yeoman's job of resolving the problem, and I admire your logic and your writing, and I especially like your metaphorical finish. And despite the above points, I still believe that you and I agree upon more things than we disagree on.
All the best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
