> On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > From: Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com > <mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> >> >> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 5 Apr 2018, at 22:20, <>agrays...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:agrays...@gmail.com> 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 >> >> >> 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.
? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by looking at the archive. Many others did too, and using an insulting tone will not help you to convince anyone. You were just interpreting the singlet state in some too much naive many-world theory. Everett has already been rather clear on all of this. O course, with computationalism it is still an open problem. Bruno > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.