On 13 Aug 2015, at 18:51, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is
violated so we know for sure that in the Many Worlds Interpretation,
just like every other quantum interpretation, at least one of the
following must be wrong:
1) Realism (things exist in a definite state even if they are not
measured)
2) Determinism
3) Locality
The Many Worlds Interpretation is realistic so if it's true then
nothing determines if the universe splits or not (it's random)
> It's not random!
MWI is realistic and if it's deterministic too then we know from
the violation of Bell's inequality that for it to be true it must be
non-local; and to my mind that is far more disturbing than if some
things were just random.
I beg to differ on this. I can make sense of randomness in the 1p, and
many kind of them actually, but in the 3p it always look like let us
not try to understand.
And I have not yet see a proof that the multiverse is non local. No-
locality proved by Bell, Grz or Hardy and non contextuality à-la
Kochen and Specker seems to me first person plural notions, coming
from our ignorance of the non accessible branches of the
superposition. Everett wave evolve deterministically, randomness, non-
locality and non-contextuality are, I would bet on this, first person
plural subjective (thus) realities. It is not shocking as the UD
argument predicts this to happen (quai trivially, it is the amount of
locality and determinism which might be a problem for the
computationalist later.
> The whole point of MWI is that it all happens, and the
randomness arises from which branch "you" end up in (ah, the
pronouns again!).
No, Everett didn't develop the MWI because he was desperate to
find a deterministic theory, he did it to explain quantum weirdness,
and randomness is one of the least weird parts of it;
That is your opinion. Einstein called "insanity" the belief in "God
play dice", and about non-locality, he said he would prefer to be a
plumber than a physicist if that was true.
That is not argument, but point that 3p randomness is a bit hard to
accept for some.
It is "God made it" in disguise. Consistent, but not worth it as an
explanation. There is no logical contradiction in saying God made it,
but that explains nothing.
Bruno
in fact I don't think that's weird at all, but non-local is weird.
You'll never find something if you don't look for it so for
practical reasons it is often useful to have "every event has a
cause" as your default position, and in many cases events do have
causes, but there is no logical reason to think all of them do.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
