Talk:Invariant set postulate

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

A fact from Invariant set postulate appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 July 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the invariant set postulate may help to resolve some of paradoxes of quantum mechanics aired in the Bohr–Einstein debates, using fractal geometry such as the Mandelbrot set (pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/July.

Wikipedia

Opinion

I'm looking at a passage in the current article that says

According to Palmer this could resolve problems posed by the Kochen–Specker theorem, which appears to indicate that physics may have to abandon the idea of any kind of objective reality, and the apparent paradox of action at a distance.

My first thought on looking at this was, the Kochen-Specker theorem doesn't appear to indicate that. A later thought was that action at a distance isn't an apparent paradox. If these are opinions by Palmer, that isn't clear from the way the sentence is constructed, and the location of that sentence in the article might also not be the right place for an extensive description of these opinions by Palmer. (On Wikinews we'd say they need to be attributed.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More recent sources

Here are some more recent sources, by Palmer:

2011 "The Butterfly and the Photon: New Perspectives on Unpredictability" Science: Image in Action, pp. 129-139

2014 "Lorenz, Gödel and Penrose: new perspectives on determinism and causality in fundamental physics" Contemporary Physics, 55:3, 157-178

2015 "Bell's conspiracy, Schrödinger's black cat and global invariant sets" 373 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A

2015 "Invariant set theory: violating measurement independence without fine tuning, conspiracy, constraints on free will or retrocausality" arXiv:1507.02117 Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic, 285–294, Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. (EPTCS), 195.
Review: MR3594198 (by Todd A. Brun)

2016 "p-adic Distance, Finite Precision and Emergent Superdeterminism: A Number-Theoretic Consistent-Histories Approach to Local Quantum Realism" arXiv:1609.08148

2016 "Invariant Set Theory" arXiv:1605.01051

2017 "A Gravitational Theory of the Quantum" arXiv:1709.00329

2019 "Bell inequality violation with free choice and local causality on the invariant set" arXiv:1903.10537

And maybe by Roger Penrose:

2011 "Uncertainty in quantum mechanics: faith or fantasy?" 369 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A

I wonder, what is the reaction of others... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theoretical formulation

This is a fringe theory. According to the spectrum of fringe theories, this is an alternative theoretical formulation (rather than a pseudoscience or questionable science). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]