On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 3:32:26 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
> On 09-04-2018 03:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> 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 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.
> > Bruce
> It's a simple dispute that boils down to whether or not you assume that
> classical mechanics at the macro level has a fundamental role to play in
It comes down to Immanuel Kant's phenomena vs the noumena. On the
phenomenological level classical physics is clearly important. On the
noumena level things are less clear. If I am right quantum information has
aspects of chaotic dynamics where it becomes impossible to determine if
qubits in a system are conserved. One can't physically track them; it is
much the same as sensitive dependence on sensitive conditions in chaotic
classical deterministic physics. However, just as chaos is deterministic so
ultimately is the conservation of qubits. However, whether qubits are from
a practical level conserved is a choice of what question you ask --- much
like choosing a particular quantum interpretation. Classical physics as
phenomena, sure. It is noumena? That may depend on what observation or
question you ask of nature.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.