On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > that is why he > [Einstein] > would have accepted the many-worlds with both arms, as it restablishes > determinacy > But Einstein would *NOT* have embraced Bell's paper with both hands because it proves that any physical theory that is consistent with experiment and is deterministic *MUST* be non-realistic or non-local or both. Hey don't blame me, I don't like it either but that's just the way things are. I guess the universe is not required to be congruent with human desires, and neither is the multiverse. >> >> 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. > At the 6th Solvay Conference in 1930 Einstein described a thought experiment to Niels Bohr (later called Einstein's Box) that he said showed at least in theory that something could be measured with arbitrary precision so Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle must be wrong. Einstein thought of it so naturally it was very clever and Bohr could not i mmediately find an error in it, but the next day after a sleepless night he found the mistake (ironically involving Einstein’s own General Theory of Relativity). Einstein admitted Bohr was right and his thought experiment was worthless. Einstein's 1935 EPR paper was yet another thought experiment, in it Einstein assumed that Quantum Mechanics was correct and showed that it led to a result he thought insane and so he concluded Quantum Mechanics must be incorrect or at least incomplete. But a funny thing happened 50 years later, because of technological advancement the thought experiment became a real experiment ; Alain Aspect performed it and found that the "insane" result actually happens. > > > Tell me what you mean by "realism". Do you mean "independent of us", or > "one world" ? > Realism means something exists not just independent of us but independent of consciousness or observation in general, so the MWI is realistic. That's the one huge advantage that the MWI has over Copenhagen , it doesn't need to explain what consciousness is or what constitutes an observation is (Can a chimp make a observation , or a dog or a bug or a bacteria?). Einstein was a realist , he famously asked Bohr if he really thought the moon ceased to exist when nobody was looking at it. As I say the MWI is realistic, and you say the universe always splits for deterministic reasons, if so then you'd better hope those causes are non-local because if they aren't then the MWI can never be consistent with experiment, which would just be another way of saying it's *WRONG.* 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/d/optout.
