I did read the review. In the review , he treats indeterminism and non locality as bad things that need to be avoided. But he doesn’t say why. So I don’t think the review me few anything (none of his other points are strong either).
If you don’t think the review contains anything valid, why did you post it?
You appear to not understand the comments I have left, or his essay, or both. He does not express a problem with ‘non locality’ or ‘indeterminism’, as far as I can tell. He references OTHER people who seem to have such a stance.
Yes, so you understand that reviews cannot be ‘valid‘ or ‘invalid’ independent of the arguments advanced within them? And you understand that neither the original author, nor myself, advanced an argument about the ’terribleness’ of non-locality, indeterminism, etc.? Then everything should be clear?
I did read the review. In the review , he treats indeterminism and non locality as bad things that need to be avoided. But he doesn’t say why. So I don’t think the review me few anything (none of his other points are strong either).
If you don’t think the review contains anything valid, why did you post it?
You appear to not understand the comments I have left, or his essay, or both. He does not express a problem with ‘non locality’ or ‘indeterminism’, as far as I can tell. He references OTHER people who seem to have such a stance.
It doesn’t matter who says it, it matters whether it valid or not.
It doesn’t matter who says it, it matters whether it valid or not.
Then why do you think the review is ‘invalid’ if you acknowledge the author doesn’t share the opinion?
It matters whether the argument is valid. Validity comes form the argument, not the person making it.
Yes, so you understand that reviews cannot be ‘valid‘ or ‘invalid’ independent of the arguments advanced within them? And you understand that neither the original author, nor myself, advanced an argument about the ’terribleness’ of non-locality, indeterminism, etc.? Then everything should be clear?