10-01-2016, 01:51 PM

I'm happy to position QM as a subdiscipline of information theory. It fails as a foundational theory. There is actually zero probability that based on initial conditions, and a continuous function with boundary conditions, that any QM experiment will not violate Bell/CHSH bounds.

However, given a viable framework (Christian) and a mechanism to set initial conditions and continue the function, it is easy to see that the function does not collapse. It is easy to see that entanglement is an illusion. Assume linear superposition, and you get a probability model as a product of that assumption -- this is a useful prediction for information theory, but does not belong in a foundational theory.

The acid test will be quantum computing. I cannot put it better than Karl Hess said to me in an Email message: "Sometimes things take a while, but they are caught in an awful trap. After trying to do quantum computation with entangled pairs for another 10 years, some one will be smart enough to find a way to put a stop to the nonsense."

However, given a viable framework (Christian) and a mechanism to set initial conditions and continue the function, it is easy to see that the function does not collapse. It is easy to see that entanglement is an illusion. Assume linear superposition, and you get a probability model as a product of that assumption -- this is a useful prediction for information theory, but does not belong in a foundational theory.

The acid test will be quantum computing. I cannot put it better than Karl Hess said to me in an Email message: "Sometimes things take a while, but they are caught in an awful trap. After trying to do quantum computation with entangled pairs for another 10 years, some one will be smart enough to find a way to put a stop to the nonsense."