Gary S. Bekkum wrote >I think that it is incorrect to make such sweeping assumptions linking >the mind to the quantum world as is often done in popular books. I am >not saying that I believe that the mind is a purely classical phenomena >either. I am only pointing out the many incompatible variations on the >"quantum mind" theme demonstrate that it is premature to join perception >to quantum theory. > >Regarding your last point, there is a paper at the Los Alamos pre-print >archive, available in Adobe PDF format for the Adobe Reader (available >free at Adobe.com) that explains this in detail: > >http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0003146 > >click on other formats, then select "create PDF" > >Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the >Many-Worlds Interpretation > >Authors: Frank J. Tipler >Comments: 7 pages in plain TeX, no figures > > "Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that >observers obey the laws of classical > mechanics, while observed systems obey quantum mechanics. I show >that, at least in the case of > Bell's Theorem, locality is restored if observed and observer are >both assumed to obey quantum > mechanics, as in the Many-Worlds Interpretation. Using the MWI, I >shall show that the apparently > "non-local" expectation value for the product of the spins of two >widely separated particles --- the > "quantum" part of Bell's Theorem --- is really due to a series of >three purely local measurements. > Thus, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming >the MWI."

Thank you for refering us to this nice paper. (I communicate also the reference to the everything list where people could be interested). Note that the idea that MWI restore locality is as old as Everett. In particular Everett makes that point clear in his big paper on the Universal Wave Function, when he looks at the EPR phenomenon from the multiverse point of view. But with Tipler's paper it is Bell's work itself which is under scrutiny with some clarity and rigor. That paper gives me the feeling that MWI restore also completely the classical use of counterfactual propositions. BTW it would be nice to see explicitely what happens with the Kochen and Specker theorem in the MWI. In my opinion this shows that the MWI can be seen as a realist, local and determinist hidden variable interpretation of QM, where the hidden variables correspond to the relative universe where we momentarily belongs. It is so unfortunate that Everett meet Bohr and not Einstein :-( ... (I mean in our branch!). Bruno