Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > *I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. * > >> If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the > >> polarization > of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and they always > exist in one and only one definite state.
> *I still 'really' have no idea what you mean by' realism'.* Which word didn't you understand? > *> I suggest you read Maudlin's paper:* > I suggest you read Carroll's book. And by the way, Maudlin believes that time's arrow and all the laws of physics are primitive, that is to say they can not be reduced to something else, certainly not to arithmetic. *> "Einteinian realism" and shows that this criterion is analytic -- > depending only on the meanings of the words involved.* Well duh.... how could it be otherwise?! I've clearly explained what the word "realism" means to Carroll and to modern physicists, and although there may be controversy among them about if realism is true or not there is no controversy over the meaning of the word. Modern physicists don't invent idiosyncratic meanings for common words. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2yKgFE0DVNVVJT%3Dfwoer5dk-WZfTgpYUA9XcWkYAovyw%40mail.gmail.com.
