On 19/11/2017 12:15 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 at 9:11 am, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And exactly what is it that you claim has not been proved in MW
theory? Bell's theorem applies there too: it has never been proved
that it does not. Bell was no fool: he did not like MWI, but if
that provided an escape from his theorem, he would have addressed
the issue. The fact that he did not suggests strongly that you do
not have a case.
Bell’s theory applies in the sense that the experimental results would
be the same in MWI, but the FTL weirdness is eliminated. This is
because in MWI the experimenter can’t prepare a random state,
What do you mean by this? Are you claiming that there are no free
variables in MWI? Some form of superdeterminism?
But for Bell-type experiments in MWI, or elsewhere, one does not have to
prepare a random state -- one just prepares a singlet state consisting
of two entangled particles. Nothing random about it.
since there is no true randomness, and therefore there is no question
of the entangled particle magically knowing what has happened at the
other end. Bell thought, apparently, that MWI weirdness was more weird
than FTL weirdness and rejected MWI even though it solved this problem.
Bell actually thought that Bohm's deterministic, though non-local,
theory was a better bet. But you have not addressed my counterexample to
your contention that MWI eliminates non-locality. The time-like
measurement of the two entangled particles clearly requires non-locality
in order to conserve angular momentum.
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.
