[continued from previous message]   
      
   > wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that   
   > pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse   
   > to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom   
   > is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole   
   > sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,   
   > i.e. like super-string theory.   
   >   
   > I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)   
   >   
   >   
   > Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under   
   > our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand   
   > it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.   
   >   
   > So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics   
   > is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Consider, for example, Schaefer's "A response to Carl Helrich".   
      
   https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13448/#!   
      
   https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHART-8   
      
   "As to the power of authority, when Helrich can quote Max Born for the   
   metaphysical stance that “the wavefunction itself has no physical mean-   
   ing” (p. 554), Werner Heisenberg ([1958] 1962) can be quoted for the   
   opposite metaphysical stance."   
      
      
   Then, both of those can be put to the side, explaining both, as one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)