Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. As for the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played a slot machine for a single trial or outcome, and someone asked me what happened to the other thousands of outcomes I didn't get, I'd think that would be a crazy question. But that's the question some physicists ask when they are confronted with the non-linearity of collapse in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Accepting non linearity and actual time irreversibility (not FAPP) is an easier concept to accept than the real or fictional other worlds necessary to support the MWI. BTW, the time irreversibility is not FAPP since the collapsed wf, when inserted back into the SWE, recovers only itself exactly at an earlier time, but not the original wf which collapsed. AG
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:16:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > 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] <javascript:>> >> 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, * > > > MWI is a theory. I have often explain, as a logician, that MWI is not an > interpretation but a different theory than Copenhagen. MWI = wave-function > postulate. Copenhagen-QM = wave function postulate + collapse postulate. Of > course both have some problem of interpretation (like all theories). I tend > to not accept the notion of "physical world", and working in arithmetic I > use only the notion of computation. Indeed, my result is that both the > collapse of the wave and the wave itself are universal number's First > Person phenomenologies, when we assume a form of Mechanist Hypothesis in > cognitive science. Mechanism makes physicalism wrong. > > > > > *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, * > > > Energy is a "one-world" notion, but anyway, I don't believe in worlds, at > least not until someone explains what they mean. For me, it is a convenient > fiction. With Mechanism, a world is an extrapolation made by numbers > sharing sheaves of computation verifying some measure weight, and such > measure weighting must be explained through the logic of self-reference. > You might take a look at my papers, like this one: > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html > > Or this one, if you can access it: > > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2013.03.014 > > *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 * > > > Well, it avois the non linearity of the collapse, and its dualism. OK. > But the "other worlds" are only a consequence of the contagion of the > superposition of the particle (say) to the observer. If you look at a cat > in the dead+alive state, you end yourself looking at a dead cat + looking > at a alive cat. The given brain states are orthogonal and do not interact, > but can still interfere statistically. This list is for people believing > that "everything" is a simpler conceptual notion than any particular thing, > and so welcome both the MWI in quantum physics, and the "many-computations" > in arithmetic, that we get from Mechanism. I predicted the *appearance* of > "many-worlds" before knowing about quantum physics measurement problem. > > About Bruce's points, maybe you should ask Bruce, as the cited post is a > bit out of the context of the thread. > > You asked in another post what is the FPI. > It is an acronym for First Person Indeterminacy, and it is the subjective > indeterminacy that you get in the (classical) self-duplication. Again, look > at the paper sane04 cited above, where this is made precise and explained. > The FPI is the building brick of the argument showing that Mechanism and > Physicalism are incompatible, and that physics is conceptually reduced to > arithmetic when we assume mechanism. I show that this leads to testable > consequences, and some are tested retrospectively with QM. > > > > > > > > >>> >>>> 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 * >>> >> > > Good. I think some people disagree with this on this list, but I will let > them to defend their point again, or not. > > Bruno > > > > > > >>>> 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] <javascript:>. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>> <javascript:>. >>> 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > 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.
