What is the state of modern physics in determining anything ontic?Like, is there any causation that is fundamentally local at all anymore, or are local descriptions just considered conveniences at this point because it all is encoded along some universal boundary? (Am I on the right track?)Basically I want to understand what is understood in physics nowadays to be basically causal or “ontic”.
>>17031104physics is fundamentally local
>>17031104He's not wrong. Unless you're a midwit there comes a point where you already figured things out.
>>17032316no it’s not
Seeing as most of the millenium problems are just "is topology a spook Y/N" then the answer to me is foregone.
>>17032316not at t=0, apparently
>>17032917wt does dat mean
CHSH presents a particularly simple picture of how classical resources trade against Bell violations. results were made showing that more general Bell facets can possess richer measurement-dependence frontiers, with several exactly certified optimal regimes rather than a single linear exchange rate. It is an extension of chsh
>>17032993That either locality is ontic and the universe started out extremely small and then grew, or else the universe started out non-local and then grew apart into disjoint localities, like babels tower
>>17031104>onticdunno, what's the tic rate?
