On 13/11/2017 5:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno
has to rule out the worlds in which angular momentum is not
conserved; he has not shown how he can do this. If it is simply that
you cannot find yourself in a world in which AM is not conserved,
then that is just an unabashed appeal to magic, since such worlds
have not been shown not to exist.
I just assume quantum mechanics without collapse here.
When I assume Mechanism, we are in a different field, and there at
first sight we get total indeterminacy, super-non locality, etc., and
the hard things is to explain the local appearance of determinism,
locality, etc. With mechanism we have the quantum logic, the
symmetries, but the Bell's theorem is already untractable. The
interest reside in getting a unify picture of qualia and quanta,
albeit in a platonic metaphysics, excluding the usual Aristotelian one.
In other words, you have no idea how to explain the violations of Bell's
inequality -- in many worlds or any other account of QM. It is a pity
you continue to claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality.
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.
