On 06 Oct 2015, at 00:00, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No, it does make Einstein wrong because Einstein
detested non locality even more than he hated non determinism.
> But the experience here does not show the existence of
physical non-locality, it only shows the way we are entangled
through many universes/histories/computations. It is just that
Einstein did not thought on the many-worlds way of interpreting the
wave.
Another world is about as non-local as you can get and good thing
too because any physical theory that is consistent with experiment
can not be realistic deterministic and local, at least one attribute
has to go.
Well, then we are OK. But "another world" is non local in a sense
which does not involve FTL influence.
>> From a philosophical point of view the universal wave
equation is of no more importance than lines of latitude and
longitude, only the square of the absolute value is of any
importance and even then it is only a probability, at least
latitude and longitude define a exact position.
> But the only explanation why the square gives the results we
get at the place we do the measurement needs to accept that the wave
go through those places,
We know from Gleason's theorem that in 3 spatial dimensions
only the square of Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), and not the
cube or anything else, can yield a probability without
inconsistencies; so the real question isn't why is the Born rule a
square but why is it a probability at all.
But that is the part which is explained by the "Many-Worlds
Interpretation" of QM. That is what Everett has done by using a
version of the FPI. Like with computationalism, the probabilities
appears from the first person indeterminacy on the alternate possible
realization of the state-continuations.
The only problem of this in QM, is that to use computationalism, you
need to justify the wave from the statistics made a priori on all
computational states, and justify why the quantum wave win the game.
> and that is not the case with latitude and longitude lines.
With latitude and longitude I can calculate a exact position,
but with Schrodinger's wave the best I can do is a probability.
> I can make the wave interfering.
But you can get the same results by ignoring waves and just
calculate the probability using Heisenberg's matrices.
Mathematically the Heisenberg's matrices and the waves are equivalent.
See the Deutsch and Hayden paper for the justification of locality (in
the sense of non FTL) based on the Heisenberg picture.
The point is that if you agree with the MW for the proba in QM, the
probability are given by the FPI.
So it appears that you are coherent now. If you reject the FPI in
computationalism, you need to reject it in Everett, but then I am no
more sure why you defend the MW.
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.
