From: *Lawrence Crowell* < <>>

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

    On 5 Apr 2018, at 22:20, 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.


This sounds confused. There is noncontextuality in QM that states there is nothing in QM that determines how an apparatus is to be oriented. This is in ways thinking if the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, where its orientation is a choice of basis vector. QM is invariant under choice of basis vectors. The context of the experiment is then due to the classical or macroscopic structure of the observer or apparatus.

Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in an Everettian context. As usual, he is ruled by dogmatic beliefs rather than logical argument.


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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to