> I wonder if we're starting to hit up against some sort of limitation or local maxima that is blocking our search to the global maxima.
That and maybe also human cognitive ability limits.
That and maybe also human cognitive ability limits.
Language is a gross reduction of reality and has a hard time expresssing non-local concepts. Our inability to philosophically explain QM and classical physics in a consistant way is a good example of that.
My guess is that there are concepts which require the ability to express perspectives of reality we arent able to grok because they requira a non-local (no now, no me, no it) interpretation. Language cant express non local phenomena from the perspective of non-local and so language cant express “truth” but humans can experience it.
- talk about the configuration of objects in relation to each other in space and time.
- perform social functions and to describe the actions humans take in the social world.
In either case, I think it is totally clear that you are right and there are just certain sets of concepts that human language is fundamentally unsuited for. I think this is why some mathematical concepts are so abstruse; for example, I know that I can interpret a matrix as a twisty-rotatey-stretchy operation, but it is almost impossible for me to look at a matrix and understand what it is going to do except in the simplest cases. If foundations of QM are non-local (which they appear to be), we might have to take a long time to understand how best to communicate what is going on.
They're not. Non-locality is an artifact of certain interpretations / modifications of QM (where it isn't simply a misconception). See e.g. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424011 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.2120 or the QBism intro https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5253 or Ray Streater's old EPR webpage https://web.archive.org/web/20151117174141/http://www.mth.kc... or Gell-Mann's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNAw-xXCcM8 or...
What is interpreted is mostly the consequence of that philosophically (i.e. what does that mean).
I've seen a few alternatives like electrical universe theory which tries to take the spookiness out of QM but so far no other theory reconsile both clasically and QM and the two are proven to the extent that anything can be proven. Classical physics is not proven more than QM. You could easily reverse your argument starting with QM and saying classical physics doesn't prove locality.
* Your last remarks suggest you haven't read those Werner refs and don't know what is meant by the term "classical" as I've used it here - it's a reference to the structure of (general) probability state spaces, not to classical physics per se - and you should substitute "(naively) realist" for "classical" in the above.
% And those familiar with the probability theoretic aspects (see my links in a comment in a different thread here, or Tom Banks's teaser: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/2011/... ), probably won't want to do that. For example, the reason violations of Bell-type inequalities occur in QM is mundane from this perspective: "What on earth did you expect?! You have observables that don't commute! Use the appropriate inequality." https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0375-9601(87)90075-2
The problem of interpretation is at the reconciliation phase that's what I care about.