On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, [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. >>> >>> >>> >>> Guess what, you were completely wrong. >>> >>> I was the one who denies the FTL. >>> >> >> *My text may have confused you. I thought you went to the MWI to deny FTL >> in this one-world. That's what I meant. But Bruce seems to deny FTL in this >> world, by saying the phenomenon is just a property of the wf, and in his >> appeal to the no-signalling theorem; as if to say, if you can't send >> information, there can't be FTL. But here "send information" in the context >> of no-signalling theorem just means you can't send a message of choice. AG * >> >> *What does FPI stand for? TIA, AG* >> >>> >>> 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 was the one asserting that with the MWI, even the Bell's violation >>> does not force FTL, even without signalling possible. >>> >>> My point, shared by others in the thread, was that with the MWI >>> restores both 3p determinacy, and 3p locality. The point of Clark and Bruce >>> is that even with the MWI, Bell's inequality violation proves that nature >>> is 3p non local, and that action at a distance exists. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I can only go by his words. So I don't see that the article I posted is >>> irrelevant to the discussion. AG >>> >>> >>> It was Bruce who claims that Bell's inequality violation shows that FTL >>> exists, even without possible signalling. >>> >> >> *Then why does he tell you to "get over it", it being FTL? AG* >> > > *Maybe he means that FTL exists in this world, so why resort to the MWI to > deny it. But then why does he bring up the no-signalling theorem? AG * >
*Hope I didn't offend any true believers in the MWI, but in extensive discussions about this on another MB, none of the true believers could give a coherent account of these other worlds; for example, where the energy comes from, and whether an observer in this world is reproduced in other worlds, and if so, with what memories. The MWI seems like a desperate attempt to avoid non-locality and/or non-linearity of QM. AG * > >> >>> I agree that FTL (fast than light influence which not necessarily >>> exploitable for transmission of information) still exist, and I agree that >>> it is logically possible, but people believing in that have the obligation >>> to give evidence, and my point is that in the MWI, Bell's violation is no >>> more an evidence, as Bell supposes definite outcomes in definite realties, >>> which makes no sense in the MWI, nor in computationalism more generally. >>> >> >> *I tend to agree that Bell's results assume one world. AG * >> >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/SJdbZNPRALg/unsubscribe >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. >> > > -- 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.
