From: *Bruno Marchal* <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
From: *Bruno Marchal* <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
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.
That does not follow from any proof of “non-locality” in Everett
Quantum Mechanics. But that is entailed indeed in QM + the assumption
of a unique physical universe.
Surprisingly, perhaps, Everettian QM is identical to standard QM in
every possible experiment/prediction. QM implies non-locality in any
interpretation.
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.
You talk like if you knew that there is a world. Show me one evidence.
You talk of an "infinity of worlds". Surely that means that there is at
least one?
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!
No, mechanism explain why we see ourself as living in a world, but
without committing oneself ontologically.
Oh, I see that now you admit that we live in a world. What does
ontological commitment have to do with it? You are just obfuscating again.
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
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!
I answered them. Others too.
You may have typed some words in response to my clear refutations of
their arguments, but you have by no means answered the criticisms. Your
famed logic has failed you, once again.
If you believe in influence at a distance, you are the one needing to
show the evidence of that extra-ordinary fact.
The fact is demonstrated by the experiments that test Bell inequalities
on the singlet state.
You did not. You have even considered a singlet state like if it
involves 4 parallel universes, when it involves infinitely many. See
more in the archive.
The singlet state involves only four possible combinations of
experimental results -- each such combination can be identified with a
separate universe. The infinity of universe you keep appealing to are
nothing more than a figment of your imagination; they play no role in
the understanding of the physical situation. It is mere obfuscation on
your part.
Bruno, it is clear that you have no interest in actually understanding
the implications of entanglement in quantum mechanics. We could go round
these circles for ever, but you are not going to improve your
understanding unless you actually engage with the arguments.
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.
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.
