Talk:Invariant set postulate

Opinion

I'm looking at a passage in the current article that says

According to Palmer this could resolve problems posed by the Kochen–Specker theorem, which appears to indicate that physics may have to abandon the idea of any kind of objective reality, and the apparent paradox of action at a distance.

My first thought on looking at this was, the Kochen-Specker theorem doesn't appear to indicate that. A later thought was that action at a distance isn't an apparent paradox. If these are opinions by Palmer, that isn't clear from the way the sentence is constructed, and the location of that sentence in the article might also not be the right place for an extensive description of these opinions by Palmer. (On Wikinews we'd say they need to be attributed.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

More recent sources

Here are some more recent sources, by Palmer:

2011 "The Butterfly and the Photon: New Perspectives on Unpredictability" Science: Image in Action, pp. 129-139

2014 "Lorenz, Gödel and Penrose: new perspectives on determinism and causality in fundamental physics" Contemporary Physics, 55:3, 157-178

2015 "Bell's conspiracy, Schrödinger's black cat and global invariant sets" 373 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A

2015 "Invariant set theory: violating measurement independence without fine tuning, conspiracy, constraints on free will or retrocausality" arXiv:1507.02117 Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic, 285–294, Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. (EPTCS), 195.
Review: MR3594198 (by Todd A. Brun)

2015 (with A.Döring) "New geometric concepts in the foundations of physics" 373 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Philos Trans A

2016 "p-adic Distance, Finite Precision and Emergent Superdeterminism: A Number-Theoretic Consistent-Histories Approach to Local Quantum Realism" arXiv:1609.08148

2016 "Invariant Set Theory" arXiv:1605.01051

2017 "A Gravitational Theory of the Quantum" arXiv:1709.00329

2018 "Experimental Non-Violation of the Bell Inequality" Entropy 2018, 20(5), 356, arXiv:1709.01069

2019 "Bell inequality violation with free choice and local causality on the invariant set" arXiv:1903.10537

And maybe by Roger Penrose:

2011 "Uncertainty in quantum mechanics: faith or fantasy?" 369 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A

I wonder, what is the reaction of others... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative theoretical formulation

This is a fringe theory. According to the spectrum of fringe theories, this is an alternative theoretical formulation (rather than a pseudoscience or questionable science). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are the last two paragraphs from the review by Brun.

When presented with an argument like this, my general reaction is to think that such an explanation could be possible, but that is a long way from showing that it is possible. Quantum mechanics is mathematically clear; we know how to use it to predict the outcome of experiments, and it is based on very well-understood mathematics: complex linear algebra. To make a serious rival based on $p$-adic integers, one would need to construct a theory that also makes unambiguous predictions, and which agrees with all current experiments, but in which there is no randomness and the Bell inequalities are not violated. That is a tall order, and this paper has not done anything approaching it. From reading this paper, I don’t think one would have any idea how to calculate the outcomes of a Bell experiment.

Some of the author’s earlier papers give more details about Invariant Set Theory, but seem to fall short of a really predictive theory that could actually be used from first principles, in place of quantum mechanics, to calculate the outcome of experiments. It is possible that inquiries along these lines will lead to a viable alternative to quantum mechanics. But I don’t think that goal has been achieved yet.

Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

The sentence "The third opinion, below, is dated 2018" could do with rewriting. One assumes 'below' refers to the following paragraph. There must be better ways to express this (it may be best just to remove the paragraph referring to dates, as the article reads quite well that way). --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow - 4 years. Anyway, I've deleted the statement. I'd prefer to reword as suggested by User:Brian Josephson, but I can't seem to find the correct citation for the semi-quote (!) attributed by Brun in the following paragraph. I've tagged up the offending cite but can't find the right one after Googling. Sorry. --PLUMBAGO 08:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)