On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 3:34:40 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 12:19:04 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> >> On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >> >> >> 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 [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.
