On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 1:57 AM, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I didn't mean to imply that all atoms in a baseball have the same > entangled state. >
Then a baseball is not in one definite state . > > I just meant that whatever state it's in, it's not in contradiction with > REALISM. > > Even superpositions are not in contradiction with REALISM > We know the Bell Inequality is violated and that proves that if things are deterministic then either locality or REALISM or both are untrue. And we know the Leggett–Garg inequality is also violated and that proves that if things are deterministic and REALISTIC then the non-local forces must be very odd indeed, they must violate the Arrow If Time, that is to say the future must effect the past. Face facts, n o matter what turns out to be true of one thing we can be certain, it will be WEIRD! >> >> Explain to me how >> Everett's MWI >> can work without the Multiverse. The fact that string theory also >> needs a Multiverse just give more support to Everett, or at least it would >> if there were any experimental evidence to indecate string theory was true, >> >> > > > > The Many Worlds of Everett and String Theory have no direct or indirect > relationship > Except that they both require a multiverse, as does Big Bang Inflation theory. > > > You keep ignoring the fact that these other worlds, if they exist, arise > in totally different contexts and theories > Ignore it? I didn't ignore it I'm the one who pointed it out! Three entirely different theories in 3 apparently different areas of physics all were forced to come to the exact same conclusion, the Multiverse must exist. > > > As for the continuity of time and space, to the extent we can test for it, > continuity is so far affirmed. > That is true, so far, of course we can never prove experimentally that its continuous, the best we can do is say if its granular then the grains must be smaller than X. I do admit that if space and time really are granular then much of my argument probably goes out the window. I say probably because if anything is going on at distances smaller than the Planck Length or during time less than the Planck Time we don't have a clue what they could be because both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity break down entirely at such small scales and give nonsense answers. *> Essentially, all calculations and predictions in physics are > approximations. * Yes, a computer simulation of a hurricane is an approximation of the real thing. Suppose a meteorologist said "Its not my computer model's fault for not being exactly the same as the physical hurricane, its the physical hurricane's fault for not being exactly the same as my computer model". If mathematics is really more fundamental than physics then the meteorologist would have a point. *> the fact that a Turing Machine can't do an exact calculation in finite > time seems irrelevant. * Forget finite, it can't do it even in infinite time! A supremely important type of physical machine can produce almost none of the Real Numbers even i n a n infinite amount of time, and that strongly suggests almost none of the Real Numbers are needed for a supremely important physical operation. That doesn't sound irrelevant to me. * > if you claim irrational numbers are not fundamentally important for > physics, how do you account for the fact that PI comes up in Maxwell's > equations and Einstein's field equations? * In the entire history of the world nobody has ever made one single physical calculation using PI, they've only used approximations of PI. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
