Sean Carroll

But in the formalism of quantum mechanics, there's no rule that these are the things that are being observed, the only things you can possibly observe, okay?

They're choices, and our convenience does not define the fundamental nature of reality.

So what I would argue is that you can't take these particular bases in Hilbert space very seriously when trying to understand reality.

So I don't want to undersell the implications of that.

They are big.

This is saying that position is not fundamental.

Locations in space are not part of the fundamental description of reality.

People don't like that.

Einstein would have hated it.

Many people very much alive and working on good things today don't want to go down that road.

They think that space is where things are located and it's really, really important.

And locality is the label that we give to the idea that things happen locally.

at locations in space, right?

And Einstein was a big believer in locality.

In some sense, John Bell in Bell's theorem points out that ways of understanding the quantum measurement problem are inevitably going to involve non-locality in some kind of sense.

Now, there's lots of papers to be written about what kind of sense that actually is.

In many worlds, there's a sense in which that's true, but it's a different sense in other things.

But, you know, okay.

I don't sort of mess with those conversations very much because most of those conversations about the locality or non-locality in quantum measurement

start from a presumption that, boy, we want locality to be there.