Bernardo, did the 2022 Nobel Prize disprove so-called local realism? Why or why not? Then, Tim, you'll respond.

Afterwards, I can only speak for my own perspective because, in foundations of physics, you can find people espousing

any position in this regard. Some think it disproved nothing; some think it disproved only locality; some think it

disproved physical realism; some think it disproved both. Uh, my personal position is that it did disprove not only um

locality but physical realism. And I say physical realism because I'm a realist; I just don't think that reality, as it is

in itself, is amenable to description by physical quantities. So I think physicality is the result of measurement,

but there is an objective thing that is measured; it's just not amenable to physical description. I think that that

has been proven. Um, physical realism in particular. I mean, everybody talks about Bell inequalities, but there are Leggett

inequalities as well, from his paper in Foundations of Physics, 2003. And some of those inequalities have been

experimentally shown now to be the case. Um, they they sort of zero in on physical realism, um, independent of locality, and

um, those inequalities have been shown to be the case. So, you know, large classes of non-local, uh, hidden-variable theories

have been refuted. I mean, based on those experiments alone, you could say, well, Bohmian mechanics is still in the race, but

there are so many other excellent reasons to get rid of, to not even consider Bohmian mechanics, like it doesn't

have a relativistic extension. And arguably, any relativistic extension of Bohmian mechanics would destroy the the

the particle nature, the the marble-like nature of particles in Bohmian mechanics, and extend everything back to field

So yeah, I think uh, physical realism and locality are both disproven unless one is prepared to entertain sometimes

grotesque, uh, theoretical fantasies. All right, Professor, my response that was silly. I mean, it's just

what he said was just silly. Um, how could you have a theory? You have actually several theories. The GRW theory will

predict the results of these experiments. The many-worlds theory will predict the results of these experiments insofar

as you can understand it. A pilot-wave theory, whether you're using particles or fields, you can have part, you know, a

pilot-wave theory using fields if you prefer them; that'll predict the results of these experiments. They're all

non-local theories. The experiments refute locality. How could they? How could a physical experiment refute... whatever I don't know what you mean by physical

realism, that there's a physical world. How could you do that if all of those theories can describe the laboratory in

purely physical terms, can give you dynamics for the for the things in purely mathematical physical terms, and

will predict exactly what happened. So the results of those experiments cannot conceivably refute physical reality or

physical realism, whatever you mean by that, because they're predicted by clear physical theories. So that's stupid; that's just

stupid, completely stupid. I'm sorry, let me finish. You have non-local theories like a pilot-wave theory, that's clearly non-local,

collapse theory, that's clearly non-local. They predict these results, period. So the result... that's stupid. Okay, hold on, Professor, you're

finished. Yeah, okay. Kurt, I'm not sure I want to do this with somebody who already starts by saying this is just silly when

80% of the community takes these statements seriously. This is a non-physicist; let's start from that.

doing physical research. Uh, who did not win the Nobel Prize last year? So if that's how he's going to behave, I'll

stop right now. Good. Somebody who just called me—as we even have interaction, I'm not going to do—one who started with the

I love you, man. I really love you, uh, but this is not an appropriate start. This is not—there's no sense of collegiality or

respect. I'm up for a, um, hard engagement, but not an engagement whose first word is—this is just silly. No, I was

responding, saying, "Screw you." I have no respect for you, sir. Okay, I'm going to leave. I love you, man. I really didn't

want this, but this is not something I am willing to do. There is no sense of professional cordiality or respect in

this. Okay, okay. And he's repeating things that are just stupid to say—that the Many-Worlds theory explains the results

of these experiments is a grotesque theoretical fantasy. So I'm not going to participate in this. Okay, buddy. So I'm

sorry. Maybe you can interview us separately, but I'm not going to interact with this individual. You're the

one who started it. Okay? You started with this thing like, "theoretical fantasies." You started with the insulting language, and I'm not going to sit here and listen

to it and not give the truth and keep in with you. And the truth—a bunch of things said are clear. Love

Bernardo Kastrup Flees from Tim Maudlin

Bernardo Kastrup Flees from Tim Maudlin