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

The Physicists

2022년 노벨 물리학상 수상에 대한 해석

물리학계에서는 노벨상의 의미에 대해 다양한 해석이 존재합니다.

어떤 사람들은 아무것도 반증하지 못했다고 생각하기도 하고, 어떤 사람들은 지역성만, 물리적 사실성만, 또는 둘 다 반증했다고 생각합니다.

카스트럽의 견해: 이 상은 지역성과 물리적 사실성을 모두 입증했습니다.

카스트럽은 물리적 사실주의를 정의하고 현실은 물리적인 양으로만 설명할 수 없다는 자신의 신념을 설명합니다.

레제트 부등식에 대한 언급과 실험적 검증을 통해 특정 부류의 숨겨진 변수 이론에 대한 반박을 더욱 뒷받침합니다.

Maudlin은 여러 이론(GRW, 다수 세계, 파일럿 파동)이 실험 결과를 예측하며 국지적이지 않다고 주장합니다.

머들린은 이러한 이론이 실험실을 물리적인 용어로 설명하고 결과를 예측할 때 어떻게 물리적 실험이 물리적 현실을 반박할 수 있는지 의문을 제기합니다.

머들린은 실험 결과는 물리 이론에 의해 예측된 것이기 때문에 물리적 사실주의를 반박할 수 없다고 말합니다.

Maudlin은 파일럿 파동과 붕괴 이론과 같은 비국소 이론이 실험 결과를 예측한다고 거듭 강조합니다.

카스트럽은 모들린의 무시하는 태도에 불만을 표하며 그의 전문성에 의문을 제기합니다.

카스트럽은 모드린의 무례한 행동으로 인해 토론을 종료하기로 결정합니다.

카스트럽은 직업적 친절과 존중이 부족하다는 이유로 토론을 계속할 의사가 없음을 밝혔습니다.

Kastrup은 공동 토론 대신 개별 인터뷰를 제안합니다.