From: richalivingston@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 4:27:19 PM UTC-5, Stefan Ram wrote:   
   > Richard Livingston  writes:   
   > >Simultaneity at a distance is not observable.   
   > In an inertial system: Place a detector D midway between A   
   > and B (using a yardstick). I assume that A, B and D are at   
   > rest. Generate two signals at A and B. If they arrive at D   
   > at the same time, they were sent at A and B at the same time.   
   > This would be a kind of observation, albeit delayed.   
      
   Delayed is the key word.  You cannot observe "now" now, you   
   can only observe it when it becomes on your past light cone.   
      
   ...   
   >   
   > This is the highest degree of reality: Something is very   
   > real when one can interact with it, i.e., observe it /and/   
   > affect it. Causality implies:   
      
   Only events on the past light cone can affect you.  Only   
   events on your future light cone can be affected by you   
   at this moment.  Events inside your future light cone can   
   be affected in your future.   
      
   >   
   > Systems of the past only have a semi-reality:   
   > You can sometimes observe them, but not affect them.   
   > For example, the Boston Tea Party. Also, systems of   
   > the past are only inferred from records, so it is never   
   > completely sure whether they even existed at all.   
      
   Events in the past, to the extent they are recorded or   
   (accurately) remembered are something that everyone   
   can agree on.  That is as close to reality as we will   
   ever get.   
      
   >   
   ...   
   > The collapse of an imagined function can be imagined in an   
   > inertial frame quite as "everywhere at the same time",   
   > as long as no energy-impulse is transported with superluminal   
   > speed by this collapse.   
      
   I agree wrt a mathematical function as it applies to any single   
   observer.  Yet the wave function does represent something   
   that is real, imperfectly.  I'm not saying the wave function is   
   real or that it is exactly something real, but that it somehow   
   does capture some aspect of reality.  The question is exactly   
   what of the wave function is real and what is a mathematical   
   fiction, or represents various alternate possibilities.  I am   
   coming to the conclusion it would be better to call it a   
   possibility function rather than a probability function.   
      
   Rich L.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)