All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist.
When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a
fixed background to them these questions disappear.
E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two
particles is fixed when they are created by the particle property
conservation law, but the absolutely crucial point is that that when it is
created that relationship is only in the mutual frame of the two particles
which is not yet connected to the frame of the observer. It is only when
the frame of the particles and the observer are aligned by a common
dimensional event (the measurement of the spin of one particle by the
observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the spin of the second
particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame.
The exact spin relationship between the particles existed since their
creation. It had to since their creation determined it. However that frame
was independent of that of the observer until a single common event
connected the two frames at which time every dimensional relationship of
both frames became aligned. It is basically how two independent spaces must
be completely ignorant of each other until connected by a common
dimensional event at which point all dimensionality of both become
automatically aligned in a single dimensionality.
Thus there is NO need for faster than light transmission, and your "As a
previously mentioned, according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known
solution to the paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is
Everett's theory of many-worlds." is certainly not true (more accurately
does not apply) in this model.
Second, the cat is always either alive or dead in its own frame. But that
frame is unknowable by some external observer until it becomes observable
via a common event between that frame and that observer's frame (the
measurement of whether it is alive or dead).
We can't assume some single universal dimensional frame. All dimensional
frames arise independently of each other and unaligned with each other
(because there is no common fixed pre-existing standard frame of reference,
there are only individual independent frames emerging from connected
networks of dimensional events) until they are connected and then
dimensionally aligned by some shared event.
On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:26:07 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Answers to your 3 questions.
>> 1. No.
> If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your
> interpretation address the EPR paradox (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously mentioned,
> according to Bell's theorem, there is only one known solution to the
> paradox that does not involve FTL influences, and that is Everett's theory
> of many-worlds.
>> 2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive.
>> It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.
> So are you saying that before the measurement the cat is neither alive nor
> dead, both alive and dead, or definitely alive or definitely dead? If you,
> (and I think you are), saying that the cat is always definitely alive or
> definitely dead, then about about the radioactive atom? Is it ever in a
> state of being decayed and not decayed? If you say no, it sounds like you
> are denying the reality of the superposition, which some interpretations
> do, but then this leads to difficulties explaining how quantum computers
> work (which require the superposition to exist).
>> 3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already
>> exist, but fundamentally all computations take place in logical information
>> space, as I've described before in a number of posts.
> If a quantum computer can factor a randomly generated semi-prime of
> 1,000,000 digits, where is the computation for this being performed? This
> is a computation that is so complex that no conventional computer (even the
> size of the universe) could solve this problem if given a trillion years,
> yet a device that could fit on your desk could solve it in less than a
> second. If the exponentially exploding states in the superposition are not
> really there, there is apparently no explanation at all for where the
> result of the computation comes from.
>> However I don't think the answers to these questions will help you
>> understand the theory. Refer to my other topic on this group titled "Yes,
>> my book does cover quantum reality", or refer to the book itself, or I can
>> explain further....
> Thanks. I may not have time to read your book for some time, so for now I
> would prefer to proceed by e-mail, at least until some resolution is
> reached. I appreciate the time you have spent so far in answering my
>> On Friday, December 27, 2013 9:17:52 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason
>>>> because he brings up a very important issue.
>>>> The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are
>>>> 'spread out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory
>>>> mistakenly assumes, that they are superpostions of states in this space.
>>>> However in my book on Reality in Part III, Elementals I propose another
>>>> interpretation, namely that particles are discrete information entities in
>>>> logical computational space, and that what wavefunctions actually are is
>>>> descriptions of how space can become dimensionalized by decoherence events
>>>> (since decoherence events produce exact conserved relationships between
>>>> dimensional variables of interacting particles).
>>> I am not sure that I follow, but it sounds like an interesting idea. It
>>> reminds me of Ron Garret's talk, where he says metaphorically "we live in a
>>> simulation running on a quantum computer": http://www.youtube.
>>>> The mathematical results are exactly the same, its just a different
>>> I am not sure if it is possible in any theory consistent with QM to deny
>>> completely the notion of superposition. How can the single-electron
>>> double-slit experiment be explained without the electron being in more than
>>> one place at the same time?
>>> I think it would help me understand your interpretation if you answered
>>> the following questions. According to your interpretation:
>>> 1. Are faster-than-light influences involved?
>>> 2. When it is determined whether or not Schrodinger's cat is alive or
>>> 3. Are quantum computers possible, and if so, where are all the
>>> intermediate computations performed?
>>>> However this approach that space is something that emerges from quantum
>>>> events rather than being a fixed pre-existing background to events enables
>>>> us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called quantum
>>>> 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to the
>>>> fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed.
>> 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
>> 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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.