On 12/10/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:53 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 12/10/2013 5:23 PM, LizR wrote:
    On 10 December 2013 09:06, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
    <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


        Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which 
leaves
        only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox:

        1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects
        2. Measurements have more than one outcome

        In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or 
many-world's
        is true.

    Bell realised there was a third explanation involving the relevant laws of 
physics
    operating in a time symmetric fashion. (Oddly this appears to be the 
hardest one
    for people to grasp, however.)

    Yes, that idea has been popularized by Vic Stenger and by Cramer's 
transactional
    interpretation.


Collapse is still fundamentally real in the transactional interpretation, it is just even less clear about when it occurs. The transactional interpretation is also non-local, non-deterministic, and postulates new things outside of standard QM.

I think it's still local, no FTL except via zig-zags like Stenger's.


Why? Everett showed the Schrodinger equation is sufficient to explain all observations in QM.

But it's non-local too. If spacelike measurement choices in are made in repeated EPR measurements the results can still show correlations violating Bell's inequality - in the same world. The Schrodinger equation has solutions in Hilbert space, which are not local in spacetime.

Is it just so people can sleep soundly at night believing the universe is small and that they are unique?

    There's also hyperdeterminism in which the experimenters only *thinks* the 
can make
    independent choices. t'Hooft tries to develop that viewpoint.


Hyper-determinism sounds incompatible with normal determinism, as it seems to imply a the deterministic process of an operating mind is forced (against its will in some cases), to decide certain choices which would be determined by something operating external to that mind.

I think I can use the pigeon hole principle to prove hyper-determinism is inconsistent with QM. Consider an observer whose mind is represented by a computer program running on a computer with a total memory capacity limited to N bits. Then have this observer make 2^n + 1 quantum measurements. If hyperdeterminism is true, and the results matches what the observer decided to choose, then the hyper-determistic effects must be repeating an on interval of 2^n or less.

There's nothing in the theory to limit the capacity to local memory, if hyper-determinism is true, it's true of the universe as a whole.

Brent


It is provable that no deterministic process limited to a fixed quantity of memory (and therefore a fixed number of states) can go through more than 2^n states without repeating, so either the randomness in QM will repeat, or the observer will get to states where their choices cannot be made to continue to agree with quantum measurements.

Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to