Thank you for clarifying what exactly this question means. I have been reading around the internet and people from famous scholars to common public seem to have mixed it up. They have made it a debate of God vs Science while this question is not at all about that debate. Thank you again.

http://pjpub.org/Abstract/abstract_pet_197.htm

Really? You can't tell the difference between those two statements?

Scott then: "They actually both are, and are not, individual particles"

Scott now: "I never said a particle both is, and is not, a particle"

QED.

Have a nice day, Scott, we're done here :-)

I never said a particle both is, and is not, a particle. I think you misread me.

I would be happy to look at your points after further examination.

It is quite true- the paper is explicit on this point- that the argument does not falsify the universe as a quantum system.

It simply falsifies the universe as a quantum system *as a scientific hypothesis*.

It is clearly a metaphysical hypothesis, and ought to be examined on metaphysical grounds.

As to your suggestion about "quantum logic", may I reiterate.

If "quantum logic" allows us to say that a particle both is, and is not, a particle, then "quantum logic" is barking madness.

I'm not convinced that the logic in the article you linked to is universal to all interpretations of quantum mechanics (the paper itself qualified this by saying the assumptions made are "almost uncontroversial among the proponents of different quantum interpretations"), especially as another article that cites it seems to think that it only applies to the Copenhagen interpretation. I will have to look at this some more though; it is interesting. In any case, the paper you cite does not falsify wave function of the universe theories as you claim above; it only asserts they are not testable. Given the definition of universe in that paper they will never be testable.

In regard to your insistence on using classical logic (such as your statement "But in this case, your earlier statement: 'They actually both are, and are not, individual particles.' is falsified by your own argument."), I suggest you research differences between classic logic and quantum logic.

A good discussion on the philosophical implications of quantum logic can be found in "Everything Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized" by Ladyman et. al. It gets into such topics as whether quantum particles are individuals, among other ideas. I started reading it last fall but never finished; this makes me want to get back to it as it is still sitting on my Kindle.

Scott:

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you would choose not to engage the argument.

"If you think one article can refute a theory (in this case an entire class of theories), you might want to do some reading on the philosophy of science"

>> I have an excellent defense against all such sophistry, Scott:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong"--- Albert Einstein

The principle applies in this case, to the *logical* falsification of the claim of a quantum system universe, in the linked paper, which consists in this marvelously simple and devastating observation:

"In order to relate the probabilistic predictions of quantum theory uniquely to measurement results, one has to conceive of an ensemble of identically prepared copies of the quantum system under study. Since the universe is the total domain of physical experience, it cannot be copied, not even in a thought experiment. Therefore, a quantum state of the whole universe can never be made accessible to empirical test. Hence the existence of such a state is only a metaphysical idea. Despite prominent claims to the contrary, recent developments in the quantum-interpretation debate do not invalidate this conclusion."

Certainly nothing you have stated so much as addresses, much less refutes, the identification of the problem for your quantum system universe hypothesis.

"They actually both are, and are not, individual particles."

>> Pardon me, but this is barking madness. To admit this bit of madness into any logical system is to make the subsequent introduction of any idiocy desired completely unfalsifiable.

"(If you are really interested, you can look up a number of ideas that discuss how this can be true - one popular one is that they really are just one particle

>> "They" cannot be "just one particle". "They" applies to more than one. "It" applies to one.

" in a different dimensional framework and we just perceive them as separate particles.)"

>> In which case, obviously, our perception is in error, and ought to be corrected.

But in this case, your earlier statement:

"They actually both are, and are not, individual particles."

is falsified by your own argument.

Your own argument affirms that there is one particle, and our perceptive apparatus is misled.

That is perfectly sane.

Happens all the time.

What is certain, is that you yourself do not believe the catastrophic logical fallacy:

"They actually both are, and are not, individual particles."

Which is very good news.

I love how you cite the article that you think completely refutes the wave function of the universe. If you think one article can refute a theory (in this case an entire class of theories), you might want to do some reading on the philosophy of science. Especially an article that has only been cited four times in the past 14 years. And where one of the citations discusses a refutation. Especially ironic is the that one of the arguments you quoted from the article is that it is just a "metaphysical idea", when you are espousing God.

While you think that quantum non-locality is "a bit of flatulence", it is indeed how the world works. I'm not here to argue the validity of a basic tenet of physics. You can research that on your own.

"Particles are not composite if they are entangled" is correct. They actually both are, and are not, individual particles. (If you are really interested, you can look up a number of ideas that discuss how this can be true - one popular one is that they really are just one particle in a different dimensional framework and we just perceive them as separate particles.) Again, that is how the quantum world works. I'm sorry if English didn't evolve to encompass a theory where one thing can be in two places at once, multiple things can mathematically be shown to be one thing, and one thing can be both a wave and a particle at the same time.