On 15 Apr 2016, at 17:45, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
On 14 Apr 2016, at 20:25, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
MWI: "local" or not?
There are papers *trying* to explain "local" in MWI. In example:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/504/2/cracow.pdf
That's a good one, imo.
..............................................
..............................................
Note that with computationalism, we might still expect some physical
non-locality, and so it is my "physical intuition" which makes me
skeptical. Despite I think that physics is only an appearance
emerging from arithmetic see from inside by computable objects, I
tend to infer from observation and reasoning that both QM and
special relativity are plausibly correct, together with some minimal
amount of physical realism (but not physical fundamentalism). Non
locality would hurt badly that feeling. Physics would no more have
any relation with a reality independent of ourself, and would go
farer in weirdness than what we can expect from digital mechanism!
Bruno
Imo "local" (and perhaps also "deterministic") sounds crazy in MWI.
"Separable" would be better?
?
On the contrary. MWI restores locality and deteminacy in the 3p
picture, and get indeterminacy and non-locality in the first person
plural views, well in accord with computationalism.
Right now, I'm reading something ..... “It appears that an
understanding is possible via the notion of information. Information
seen as the possibility of obtaining knowledge. Then quantum
entanglement describes a situation where information exists about
possible correlations between possible future results of possible
future measurements without any information existing for the
individual measurements. The latter explains quantum randomness, the
first quantum entanglement. And both have significant consequences
for our customary notions of causality. It remains to be seen what
the consequences are for our notions of space and time, or space-
time for that matter. Space-time itself cannot be above or beyond
such considerations. I suggest we need a new deep analysis of space-
time, a conceptual analysis maybe analogous to the one done by the
Viennese physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach who kicked Newton’s
absolute space and absolute time form their throne. The hope is that
in the end we will have new physics analogous to Einstein’s new
physics in the two theories of relativity.” --A. Zeilinger: http://edge.org/response-detail/26790
No problem with "information", except that the word is tarditionnally
called in may different senses, and often blurr the distinction
between the private meaning/intepretation of the 3p information, or
just the 3p information like with Shannon. Then, the reasoning from
computationalism, or from QM-without collapse, shows that you can't
avoid the multidreams. If that is Zeilinger wish, I think it cannot be
done. It would certainly make physics depart a lot of what we can
expect from computationalism.
Bruno
--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
