That's the second time you've said that and I still don't know what you mean. Why not? We can easily see the quantum effects behind the original interferometer experiment even though there's nothing odd going on there in terms of wavefunctions collapsing or what have you.
Also, the fact that...
The observer can't perceive themselves as existing in a superposition, that'd be silly.
And there's nothing inconsistent about this if you abandon all notion of "particle" and "wave" and say, "wibbly-wobbly quantum-y thing." (Doesn't your detector go ding when there's stuff? :p)...
Why?
Sure there is - hypotheticals that aren't real.
It doesn't make sense to say time came into being without a meta-time.
What change? When was there only one?
No. That's not what "dimension" means in this context. :p
You keep using that concept of prior to the BB as though it makes any more...
At all moments in time, there exists a somewhere - the universe. There is no before the Big Bang to ask, no more than there is a more southerly place than the South Pole.
Yes - spacetime, as a whole, does not and cannot change.
You misunderstand the concept of the Big Bang - it is a location...
What does it mean for an unchanging, static object to have a source?
All sections of time always exist. At the point of the big bang, the future and past exist, but there is merely no space which qualifies as "the past." The rest of the universe is either in the present, or the future.
The principle is that spacetime is four-dimensional and mass and energy are the same quantity expressed in different directions. (Rest mass is time-like momentum.)
OK, we're talking about a perfectly isolated system that doesn't interact with anything, and I'm good with claiming that the system is perfectly described by the wavefunction, with no "discontinuous change" involved. You're saying this is insufficient because I don't have any mechanism for...
I agree, although IMO, however you interpret QM, every object has to have some well-defined state regardless of who knows what about it. There has to be something for God to see, even if nobody in practice can measure it.
What "physical system" are you trying to make it correspond to, and why?
Amusingly, I have heard fourth-hand that, back in the grand old days of the British Empire, homosexuality of any sort was illegal, except under one circumstance.
:cover:
The problem is that "state." Classical physics says "This is a particle's state..." Quantum physics says, "This is a particle's state..." You're saying that both of these are wrong, but not providing any alternative explanation for what a particle's state "really" is. As far as the physics is...
I want an explanation of what I'm measuring. What's the electron's state described by, if not a wave function? Does it have a defined spin before I measure it?
If you are not measuring the wavefunction, (because that's not real) what are you measuring? What is "really" there? You're saying the wavefunction is not reality, but you're not replacing it with anything.
Not quite - you have to show why it appears to take place in a almost-Euclidean space...