4 ms·

I think RAW's point is that the principles of QM provide support for a philosophical viewpoint that can be practiced through adjusted semantics. As far as the

I think RAW's point is that the principles of QM provide support for a philosophical viewpoint that can be practiced through adjusted semantics. As far as the QUIM, I would like to see some data before making a judgment. I don't have sufficient understanding of the related physics to make theoretical conjectures about its plausibility (or absurdity).

ThomPete 16y ago
And that is exactly where he streches it too far. There is no support for that. Non zero nada nilsch. He just takes one semantic interpretation and applies it to another. But qm isn't about semantics. Our interpretation isn't qm, qm is mathematical and experimental. Every interpretation we choose to put on top, only relates to what happens in the qm world and that is by no metrics what happens in the physical, let alone semantic world. It's simply pseudo science.