From: *Bruno Marchal* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
On 9 Apr 2018, at 18:19, John Clark <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 9 Apr 2018, at 03:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm
<https://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm>
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!
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
