Richard, I wish you well in your talk and in all your endeavors. You have to expect opposition, though, in your attempts to convert an empirical explanation for quantum events to a scientific fact. That is Aristotelian science, and it's a step backward. I reproduce an exchange between you and me from earlier this month:
"Bell shows that attempts to refine QM either fail or lead to non-classicality."
And therein lies the problem, Richard. Because there was no mathematical theory to incorporate the results of empirical QM, it could never rise above the level that its domain allows. Quantum configuration space will always be smaller than physical space.
In other words, QM interpretations can only be plausible, they can never be theoretical. In the extreme, I can make (and elaborately support) a case that a plausible explanation for the sun's movement is Apollo driving his fiery chariot across the sky.
"Now it would be lovely if Christian's novel framework had given us a new (non-classical) refinement."
No it wouldn't. Instead of a supporter, I for one would be a harsh critic. Without the potential for being the basis of a classical mathematically complete theory, the measurement framework is pointless. Just like the measurement framework of conventional QM.
"However, the work in question sucks. It is permeated with beginner's errors, schoolboy howlers. The author does not react to this by fixing the errors. No: he lies, cheats, slanders. Comes up with version number 8 claiming that the content is the same as in versions 1 through 7 when in fact it is a version 8 mangled mishmash of 1 through 7 together with contradictory new. In other words, out of the frying pan into the fire, already approx 8 cycles of this. In approx 8 years."
And in that 8 years, you have learned absolutely nothing? From where I sit,you don't comprehend that the refining of a mathematical model is not equivalent to adjusting parameters in a computer program.
"The evidence for lies, cheats, slanders lies before us all. The 'meta-data'. The data is archived in arXiv."
LOL! The arXiv is not exactly the Library of Alexandria.
"So let's have a new blog on 'The Illusion of Quantum Non-locality?'. Anyone who wants to propose division algebras as a way to dispel the so-called illusion can do so. Others can bring up other ideas. Maybe we can dispel some illusions as to what Bell did. Many 'followers' of Bell are as confused as many 'deniers'. Sounds like religion, doesn't it! One should also distinguish between the analysis which Bell presented in chapter 2 of his book and refined esp. in chapters 13 and 16 and 24, and his own personal preferences for 'what one should believe'."
Yes, it's all about belief for you, isn't it? You're on.
