On 6/5/2016 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I don't think anyone (except Joy Christian) argues that Bell's
theorem does not apply in MWI - I certainly don't think that.
That was the central argument that sought to establish that MWI was
local -- MWIers claim that Bell assumed something in his proof that
does not hold in MWI, so the theorem does not apply to MWI. The
conclusion they want to draw is that since the Bell inequalities are
inapplicable in MWI, observation of violations of the inequalities can
not be interpreted as evidence of non-locality. I think that argument
is dead -- Bell did not assume counterfactual definiteness,
I guess it depends on what fact you counter. Even if the hidden
variable is probabilistic, its the realized random value that is shared
by the particles and so that's implicitly assuming counterfactual
definiteness at the hidden variable level: if the random value had been
something else the measurement values would be something different.
and even if he did, that would not have affected his proof. Also, he
did not need to assume that experiments had only one result -- the
theorem applies to correlations between decohered experimental
results, and thus applies equally to all branches of the wave function
(if you want to think in MWI terms).
Right.
Brent
--
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.
