On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 3:34:40 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 12:19:04 PM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
>>
>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@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>
>> 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. 
>>
>
> *It's gratifying that someone understands entanglement. It means two 
> separated subsystems are not really separated. Right? Anything else we need 
> to know? AG*
>

*Oh, I should have written that entanglement can be described as two 
spatially separated subsystems that are not SEPARABLE. Now that make a lot 
of sense, except to Bruno, the accused deceiver and obfuscator, for whom 
the statement is not intelligible. AG *

>
>  
>
>> 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.

Reply via email to