TL;DR
This paper critiques Tim Maudlin's recent reply to Werner, clarifying its context and arguing that Maudlin's response is as flawed as the original paper it addresses.
Contribution
It provides context for Maudlin's reply and offers a critical assessment, highlighting its shortcomings compared to the original work.
Findings
Maudlin's reply lacks clarity and coherence.
The critique demonstrates that Maudlin's response is as flawed as the original paper.
The paper clarifies the context of Maudlin's reply.
Abstract
A recent post by Tim Maudlin to this archive (arXiv:1408.1828) was entitled "Reply to Werner". However, it was not clear to what text this was supposed to be a reply. Here I briefly provide this context, and show that Maudlin's post is as ill-conceived as the original paper (arXiv:1408.1826).
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsQuantum Mechanics and Applications · Philosophy and History of Science · Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs