On 12/11/2013 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote:
    On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote:
        On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
        <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

            On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
            <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

                    >> Determinism is far from "well established".

                > It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.

            In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such
            assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment 
            ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption
            should be added in.

        I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by
        implying the existence of a multiverse.
        Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular.  Everett 
assumes a
        multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic.

    I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here].

    I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM "follows the
    principle of determinism" (or something like that) because it appears to be
    indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the
    two-slit experiment does /suggest/ the multiverse as a valid explanation, in
    that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated 

    I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say
    that determinism is reasonably well established, but only as a result of a 
    and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on.

    But it isn't.  As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic 
    so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect?  Among apostles of 
    there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen.  But Bohr's idea was that the 
    world, where things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* 
prior to
    the quantum mechanics.  QM was a way of making predictions about what could 
    and observed.  Today what might be termed neo-Copenhagen is advocated by 
    Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson.  I highly recommend Scott's book "Quantum
    Computing Since Democritus".  It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but if
    you're just interested in the philosophical implications you can skip to the
    last chapters.  Violation of Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the
    randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only 

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

That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a parallel universe is.

What is non local here?

A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts.

This will include only apparent distant associations. Splitting or differentiation occurs at the speed of the interaction, which is light speed, or slower. The same occurs in the UD.

But it is distant associations that make violation of Bell's inequality a non-local phenomenon. One may say decoherence propagates via interactions within the forward light cone, but the source can be a set of spacelike events (e.g. corresponding to different measurement choices at opposite ends of an EPR experiment).

Whether the same occurs in the UD is just a hope, unless you've been able to derive spacetime from the UD process.


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