On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 10:29:05 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>>> In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob have >>> >>>> to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or (-,-') >>> >>>> worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything >>> >>>> significant to the discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which are >>> >>> necessarily there in QM+collapse. >>> >> >>> >> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof. >>> > >>> > By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows from >>> > linearity. >>> >>> Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean >>> absolutely nothing. >> >> >> >> This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion. >> >> Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not understand >> or disagree with. >> >> >> >> "locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of >>> total nonsense. >>> >> >> >> OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other posts. >> Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and there and then >> adding to the prejudices. >> >> To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame of the >> non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that without any >> collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the linearity of the SWE >> ensure that at any time everything is local, even computable, in the global >> third person picture. >> >> Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p sense >> in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in arithmetic) the >> indeterminacies and the non local appearances are purely epistemic (first >> person or first person plural). >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality violation >>> > is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, or >>> > Bohmian particules. >>> > I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that there >>> > was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are real >>> > action at a distance. So I think the point has been made. >>> >>> There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell >>> non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over >>> thinking that non-locality means FTL action. >>> >> >> Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling >> theorem puts this issue >> to rest. AG >> >> >> In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this, >> > > I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark above, > he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission of information, > and that since the no-signal theorem denies that, your claim (or any claim > of FTL transmission) is falsified.The article I posted denies that the > apparent contradiction between relativity and non locality can be resolved > simply by appealing to the non-signalling theorem, which Bruce seems to > assert. I can only go by his words. So I don't see that the article I > posted is irrelevant to the discussion. AG >
Bruce insists there is no FTL phenomenon; that all we're dealing with is a property of the wf. Yet it seems that Alice and Bob have information that could only be transmitted FTL since they're space-like separated. I don't see how the no-signalling theorem resolves or denies this conclusion. But Bruce seems very sure. As for Bruno, I think he claims that there's no FTL phenomenon using the MWI, but there is for one-world with a collapse. Personally, I have always regarded the MWI as a cure that is worse than the disease. I have never heard any coherent account of how these other worlds come into existence, or even what exactly they contain and imply -- multiple copies of the observer, all with the same of the past? AG > > >> >> The question was specifically about some possible remnant of physical >> action at a distance in the MWI. We both know that the non signaling does >> not put light on this. Genuine physical action at a distance obviously >> exist in the QM-with-collapse, by Bell's inequality violation, but Bell's >> argument does not show action at a distance( in any unique branch if that >> exist), in the MWI. >> >> What we have is the contagion of superposition, and they never go quicker >> than interaction, that is at sub-speed of light. >> >> And that is why we can define, or represent the "world" by set of >> space-time events closed for interaction. >> >> >> >> http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf >> >> >> Interesting (but out of topic indeed). >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >>> >>> That adds nothing, indeed. That shows only that the paradoxes came >>> >>> only from the axioms some have added to fit their philosophical >>> >>> prejudices. >>> >> >>> >> So you add axioms to suit your philosophical prejudices just as >>> >> others do -- how does that make your position any better than that of >>> >> others? >>> > >>> > No. I subtract axioms. >>> > >>> > Bohr's axioms: SWE + COLLAPSE + number (add,mult) (+ >>> > unintelligible theory of mind) >>> > >>> > Everett's axioms SWE + Number (add,mult). (+ mechanist theory of >>> > mind) >>> > >>> > Your servitor's axioms: Number(add,mult). (+ mechanist theory >>> > of mind) >>> > >>> > And I don't pretend that is true, only that digital mechanism makes >>> > this necessary and testable (modulo the usual "malin génies"). >>> >>> All the above sets of axioms lead to non-local theories. You may claim >>> just to subtract axioms, but that is as much choosing your axioms as any >>> other procedure. And you have yet to show that you get the physics of >>> this world out of your theory --and demonstrate the necessary stability >>> of the physics. Just wishing evil genies away does not actually banish >>> them. >>> >>> 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.
