On 07 Jan 2014, at 16:19, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:36 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Bell derived his inequality assuming QM with collapse

No he did not, Bell makes no such assumption or interpretation, in fact not one word about Quantum Mechanics is needed in his entire derivation. None zero zilch goose egg. And that is why even if Quantum Mechanics turns out to be wrong and is succeeded with a newer and better theory it would still be true that if things are realistic and local then Bell's inequality can NEVER BE VIOLATED, provided that high school algebra and trigonometry are valid.


Yes, you are correct on this.
But Bell shows also that QM-*with*-collapse violates the inequality.

Then the experiences (like the one by Aspect) show that our branch violates Bell's inequality. But it does not show that the multiverse, that is QM without collapse, and thus without unicity of outcome, violate Bell's inequality.



And that is exactly why the experimental discovery that Bell's inequality WAS VIOLATED

... in our branch. In fact in all branches if it is supposed to be unique from inside, but not in the big wave itself, not in the multiverse.


was so fundamental and profound.

Yes, because it implies that if the universe is a mono-universe, then there are spooky actions at-a-distance.

For people who, like Einstein, don't believe in actions-at-a- distance, it is a strong evidence of the existence of the "parallel universes" (or macro-superpositions), like it follows from pure QM, (and, btw, from pure arithmetic, also, if we assume that we are machines).

It is the beauty of Everett, it satisfies the rationalist, because it eliminates indeterminacy and non locality, from the big picture, and this without eliminating the illusions or 1p experiences of them.

I argue that a computationalist cannot be entirely satisfied. Indeed, the computationalist has to explain (justify) why the wave, or the matrix, wins the measure on the "relative consistent extensions" existing in Arithmetic.

UDA shows a problem, which AUDA translates in math, that we have to solve if we take computationalism seriously enough. (AUDA illustrates the beginning of the solution, using the most simple and classical notion of rational belief, knowledge and observation).

Bruno




  John K Clark


--
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.

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.

Reply via email to