From: *Bruno Marchal* < <>>
On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark < <>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal < <>> wrote:

On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett < <>> wrote:

    >> Yes, Bruno is terminally confused about non-locality. He refused
    to even comment on my simple proof of non-locality in
    an Everettian context.

    > ? I did answer to your remarks, anyone can verify this by
    looking at the archive.

Bruce get used to it, Bruno has done the same thing with me for years. I've lost count of how many times I've presented a long argument and Bruno responds with "I've already debunked that argument in a previous post" but he never says where all those brilliant posts are,

It is easy to find them in the archive, but as you are stuck in the step 3 of the universal dovetailer, and claim to have debunked where everyone on the list point to you that you were dismissing the distinction between the first person (1p) view and the third person view.

or give any hint of what was in them, or point to anybody who has actually seen one of them. As far as Everett is concerned long ago I tried to explain to Bruno that a Everettian other world was about as non-local as you can get,

Phenomenologically only. But that non-locality does not allow any physical influence at a distance. Even those not exploitable for communication at a distance.

Non-locality does not allow remote communication, but it does mean that entangled physical systems are non separable, so what you do at one end of the entanglement affects the behaviour of the other end.

But, contrary to what you said, only Bruce has tried to show that we keep some influence at a distance in Everett, but convince nobody, and his “Everett interpretation” used a notion of “world” which has been shown inconsistent already with Mechanism.

So much the worse for mechanism. I imagine that you see yourself as living in a "world"; and that that world has a set of relatively consistent properties. Abolish that notion and life suddenly becomes very difficult indeed!

but once again he just said he already proved that was not true


Never said that. On the contrary I have always referred, for this non locality question in Everett, to either Deustch and Hayden paper, or Tipler’s paper, or Price Webpage <>

Your authorities are terminally flawed, as I have repeatedly shown. If you can't recall the refutations of these silly papers, then look in the archives!


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