> On 9 Apr 2018, at 15:51, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Apr 2018, at 00:48, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com >> <javascript:>> 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. > > OK. > > >> 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. > > It seems you are saying the same thing as me. > > But this does not entails any physical action at a distance, unless we > postulate a physical collapse of the wave (as opposed to a local entanglement > relative to the observer, which is local and which propagates only at the > speed of light. Then when Alice (say) measures its particle, it only tells > Alice in which partition of the multiverse she belongs, and where indeed Bob > will find the corresponding results. EPR and Bell assumes a mono-universe to > get the non locality. > > Bruno > > I don't have any serious objection with this. I though do not in thinking > about these things invoke quantum interpretations if possible. If I do I > often might appeal to a couple of them, usually MWI or Everett's and CI of > Bohr, to illustrate two ways of thinking.
OK. The point was just that with Everett, there is no *physical* non-locality, just the separability (which is the term used by Bernard d’Espagnat, to indeed avoid the common misunderstanding here). About Bohr, it is unclear, but in his reply to EPR (Einstein Podolski Rosen paper) he mentions that indeed, the collapse cannot be a physical process, and then get unclear about what quantum mechanics is all about. > There is also the Montevideo interpretation that takes off from Penrose's > idea of gravitation and R-process. However, I don't particularly believe in > any of them. Me neither. It would be nice, though, as consciousness would be responsible for the curation of space (gravitation), but again, it is poorly convincing, especially after his misuse of Gödel’s theorem for defending a non-mechanist theory of consciousness. Bruno > > LC > > -- > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
