> On 5 Apr 2018, at 22:20, [email protected] wrote: > > Assuming that QM is a non-local theory, if two systems become entangled, say > via a measurement, do they necessary have a non-local connection? That is, > does entanglement necessarily imply non-locality? AG
As Everett already understood, non-locality is itself phenomenological. But the violation of Bell’s inequality makes any mono-universe theory highly non-local. It is my main motivation to be skeptical in any mono-universe theory. Some, even in this list, believes that in the many universe theory there are still some trace of no-locality, but generally, they forget to use the key fact, explains by Everett, that observation are independent of the choice of the experimental set up. In particular, a singlet Bell’s type of state, involves really a multi-multiverse, somehow. Better not to take the idea of “universe” to much seriously, as in fine, those are local first person plural relative states, and they emerges already from elementary arithmetic, in a way enough precise to be compared with the facts. Bruno > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
