On 02 Jan 2014, at 15:11, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net>wrote:Jason,Great! An amazing post! You seem to have correctly gotten part ofthe theory I proposed in my separate topic "Another stab at howspacetime emerges from quantum events." Please refer to that topicto confirm...Do you understand how the fact that the spins are determined in theframes of the spinning particles WHEN they are created falsifies FTLand non-locality?Yes, but I also think this leads to many worlds, since there is nota single state of the superposition.

`I agree with what you *mean*, but it is pedagogically confusing to say`

`it in that way. Up+Down *is* a single state (in the complementary`

`base).`

`A bag of Up+Down particles behaves differently than a mixture of Up`

`and Down particles.`

The particle pair is not just Up_Ddown or Down_Up,

`Indeed that would be the case of a particle taken in the second bag:`

`the mixture of Up-down and Down-up pairs of particles.`

but both Up_Down + Down_Up. After the measurement, it isMeasured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up.Bell's inequality leads to a refutation that the two particles canhave just a single state.

`I understand what you mean, but Measured_Up_Down + Measured_Down_Up is`

`a single superposed state, which is indeed the result of the linearly`

`contagion of Up_Down + Down_Up to the one of the observer. With the`

`universal wave of Everett, there is only one pure quantum state, and`

`it is perhaps the vacuum state (H=0) which is the superposition of all`

`possible complementary states of the universe.`

`In set theory there is something analogous. if you define the unary`

`intersection INT(x) by the intersection of all y in x, you have that`

`the INT({ }) = the set theoretical universe, that is the class of all`

`sets (which is usually not a set in the most common set theories). It`

`is similar to a^0 = 1.`

`With comp, there is not even such a wave, and I prefer to put the sets`

`in the numbers' epistemology. The wave has to be what the average`

`universal machine observes when it looks below its substitution level`

`relatively to its most probable computations/universal neighbor.`

`Why does the quantum wave win the measure battle? I think the`

`explanation is in the "material", probabilistic, intensional nuance of`

`self-reference.`

Bruno

Jason Edgar On Wednesday, January 1, 2014 2:21:33 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 4:33 AM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote: On 1 January 2014 21:34, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/31/2013 7:22 PM, LizR wrote:On 1 January 2014 13:54, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:Of course in Hilbert space there's no FTL because the system isjust one point and when a measurement is performed it projects thesystem ray onto a mixture of subspaces; spacetime coordinates arejust some labels.I thought there was no FTL in ordinary space, either? (I mean, nonerequired for the MWI?)Right, but the state in Hilbert space is something like |x1 y1 z1 s1x2 y2 z2 s2> and when Alice measures s1 at (x1 y1 z1) then s2 iscorrelated at (x2 y2 z2). As I understand it the MWI advocates saythis isn't FTL because this is just selecting out one of infinitelymany results |s1 s2>. But the 'selection' has to pair up the spinsin a way that violates Bell's inequality.If I understand correctly ... actually, let me just check if I do,before I go any further, in case I'm talking out my arse. Whichwouldn't be the first time.I assume we're talking about an EPR correlation here? If yes, I've never understood how the MWI explains this.The thing to remember is entanglement is the same thing asmeasurement. The entangled pair of particles have measured eachother, but they remain isolated from the rest of the environment(and thus in a superposition, of say UD and DU). Once you as anobserver measure either of the two particles, you have by extensionmeasured both of them, since the position, which you measured hasalready measured the electron, and now you are entangled in theirsuperposition.JasonI've see it explained with ASCII diagrams by Bill Taylor on the FOARforum, and far be it from me to quibble with Bill, but it never madesense to me. Somehow, the various branches just join up correctly...The only explanation I've come across that I really understand forEPR, and that doesn't violate locality etc is the time symmetry one,where all influences travel along the light cone, but are allowed togo either way in time.So although I quite like the MWI because of its ontologicalimplications, this is one point on which I am agnostic, because Idon't understand the explanation.In fact, it's generally assumed to be very, very STL (unless lightitself is involved). At great distances from the laboratory, oneimagines that the superposition caused by whatever we might do tocats in boxes would decay to the level of noise, and fail tospread any further.That's an interesting viewpoint - but it's taking spacetime insteadof Hilbert space to be the arena. If we take the cat, either aliveor dead, and shoot it off into space then, as a signal, it won'tfall off as 1/r^2.No, but it will travel STL!Sure. I was just commenting on the idea that the entanglement has akind of limited range because of 'background noise'. An interestingidea, similar to one I've had that there is a smallest non-zeroprobability.But if you want to get FTL, that's possible if Alice and Bob arenear opposite sides of our Hubble sphere when they do theirmeasurements. They are then already moving apart faster than c andwill never be able to communicate - with each other, but we, in themiddle will eventually receive reports from them so that we canconfirm the violation of Bell's inequality.Hmm, that's a good point. That would, however, fit in nicely withtime symmetry (which really needs a nice acronym, I'm not sure "TS"cuts it). I tend to evangelise a bit on time symmetry, but onlybecause everyone else roundly ignores it, and it seems to me that itat least has potential.--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 GoogleGroups "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 GoogleGroups "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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.