On 6/5/2016 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Jun 2016, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 5/06/2016 3:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 4/06/2016 4:16 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
If the world is a simulation, i.e. is being computed by a Turing
machine, then the computation can implement non-local hidden
variables and violate Bell's inequality in the simulated world (in
fact all its variables would be non-local since locality and
spacetime would just be computed phenomena).
Sure, Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables. If you
simulate non-local hidden variables (i.e., get the separated
experimenters to communicate non-locally), then of course you can
reproduce the quantum correlations. But I was under the impression
that the computationalist goal was to eliminate non-locality.
Separated experimenters, with as much computing power as necessary,
cannot simulate the quantum correlations by performing only local
computations.
You can simulate the whole (multiversial) structure, and the
observers will find that from their perspective, Bell's inequality
are violated. From outside, we can see (like Everett saw) that it is
just a case of self-duplication FPI. (Which brings us back to the
preceding thread of course).
Locally, Alice and Bob can simulate anything they like, and they can
simulate universes with non-local hidden variables, and predict that
within those worlds the Bell inequalities are violated. But when they
get back to their own world and compare their results, they will find
that the correlations between their separate simulations of the
results of spin measurements at arbitrary angles invariably satisfy
the inequalities. In other words, they cannot, jointly, simulate the
quantum results in any world that they both inhabit. The MWI view
from outside is no different -- non-locality is inescapable.
You don't need to simulate hidden non- local variable. You need to
just simulate the wave function.
Which depends on both spatial variables of the particles in an EPR
experiment and so it non-local.
Brent
It will take a super-exponential time to do so, but the many couples
of Alice and Bob will all (except for a negligeable subset) detect
non-locality in their respective branches, although we, from outside,
will know that noting non-local ever happened. The non-locality will
only be a FPI statistical appearances.
It is the same for "our" multiverse. It obeys a deterministic local
equations, and non-locality in all branches are a local relative
appearance, like the indeterminacy itself.
Bruno
Bruce
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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.
