On 14 Aug 2015, at 18:25, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bell's 1964 paper only make quantitative what Einstein saw
clearly already
Bullshit. Einstein would have been horrified at Bell's paper and the
experimental confirmation that Bell's inequality was violated.
I totally agree with you, Einstein would have been horrified, with the
one universe he have in mind at that time. This is because in one
universe, that would violate contextuality and locality, actually: any
reasonable interpretation of relativity. Quite horrified: he said
indeed he would have prefered to have been a plumber instead of a
physicist.
And that is why he would have accepted the many-worlds with both arms,
as it restablishes determinacy and, I think, locality as ell, but not
in our 1p-plural neighborhoods, only on the sheafs of computations
relatively distinguishable, or not.
Everett theory is fundamentally a relativity theory, determinist,
local, but highly not contextual as it is "many contextuals". And
computationalism, or classical computationalism to emphazises the
importance of the classical Church-Turing thesis, and that it is OK to
use the excluded middle principle for the arithmetical propositions.
> in 1627 at the Solvay Congress in Brussels
Einstein's EPR paper (which is his closest thing to Bell's paper)
came out in 1935 not 1627.
Sorry, I meant 1927. Of course. That is, 8 years before EPR. Einstein
explains that if the collapse is physical, it is non local. Many good
thought experiences are in the dialogue between Bohr and Einstein.
Bohr will also admit that the collapse cannot be physical in his reply
to Einstein. But then what is it?
With Everett it is a FPI-type of illusion absed on some mechanist
hypothesis.
What I explain is that if the FPI relies on computationalism it
extends in the sigma_1 reality. From inside it can go much farer.
> So I am waiting since long a proof of no-locality
As I have said at least twice there is no such proof, but there is
proof that if things really are local then things are either non-
deterministic or not realistic. Take your pick.
I am OK if you interpret realist by ~Many-world. Then you know my
pick, as I explain the many world by the many "dreams" that even RA
can prove their existence already.
> I think that Einstein would have eventually opt for Everett's
view on the matter, as it keeps determinism, locality, and even
contextuality, in the big picture, and explain the appearance of a
lack of them by the 1-3 difference. [...] Experiment does not
show that reality is not local, indeterminist or acontextual.
In another thread somebody said that the definition of an idiot is
somebody who can not admit even to himself that he is wrong. Hmm.
Tell me what you mean by "realism". Do you mean "independent of us",
or "one world" ?
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 [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.
