On 07 Jun 2016, at 13:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That sounds like you actually do accept the standard concept of
non-locality in quantum mechanics! Spacelike separated particles
can interfere probabilistically without any possible interactions
(mechanistic force-field exchanges) between them: that is
precisely what is meant by non-locality in this context.
I think you have been too tied up with a mechanistic
interpretation of non-locality -- you appear to think that it
necessarily involves FTL exchange of some particle or other
mechanistic influence. But this is not necessarily the case -- we
don't actually postulate non-local hidden variables of this type
because that would represent an attempt to give a "local" account
of "non-locality". All that is involved is that the singlet state
is a unity, even though the entangled particles might be widely
separated. This is reflected in the fact that the wave function
itself is intrinsically non-local -- it is local and deterministic
only in configuration space, not in 3-dimensional physical space.
You are the one who seem to accept that such a non-locality is not
physical, but due to the internal relative FPI. If you agree there
is no FTL action in any physical realities, I guess we agree, then.
I have always been clear that no FTL mechanistic disturbance was
involved in quantum non-locality.
Oh! Sorry for having miss that. But Bell's inequality violation + the
mono-universe assumption does lead to such FTL, like Bohm hidden
variable theory does lead to either FTL or super-conspiracies.
The point is that once we eliminate the wave packet reduction, there
are no more FTL. And no collapse = MWI, with most weak and abstract
notion of worlds. Without collapse, the linearity makes the
superposition contagious to anything interacting, and that generate
the world. But the differenciation of "worlds" are like bubbles
generated at each points of the cosmos, like Malpertuis described
front waves, making each of them local, almost by definition.
We seems to agree on that. However, "the internal relative FPI" is
just a sequence of words that has little meaning in this context.
?
You cannot avoid them to get the report by the Alices and Bobs about
the correlation and its violation of Bell's inequality. It is the
basic mechanism in Everett's paper. I found that independently in
arithmetic (instead of a Wave equation). Indeed, with
computationalism, we have to extracted the wave from the numbers, and
by doing its through self-reference, we can distinguish the provable
from the true but non provable by the observers, leading to the
distinction, for the intensional (and Theaetetical) variants of
provability, between quanta and qualia.
Why not just accept that the observed results come from the standard
evolution of the wave function, so the observed non-locality is just
a property of the wave function -- no mystery or magical FPI about
it at all.
As I said, and insist, you need it for Bob and Alice, and anyone,
actually, to just talk about results of measurement. Like you need the
Helsinki Man opening the door and saying "Oh! I am in Moscow this
times".
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].
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.
