> On 11 Apr 2018, at 14:19, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 00:47, Bruce Kellett < 
>>> <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 
>>> <mailto: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.

I am not sure of that, but it is unclear because “standard QM” is unclear to 
me. The collapse is never defined or explained, so, somehow “standard QM” is 
not a theory. It is a theory in company of an unclear dualist metaphysics.



> QM implies non-locality in any interpretation.


QM implies a non-local phenomenology from all relative state, but there is no 
physical action at a distance occurring anywhere in the universal wave. At 
least I have never seen an evidence, still less a proof of this.




> 
>>>> 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 use the word “world” colloquially, or like a logician, where a world is a 
model, or even just a point in a set. They are not primitively existing things, 
but mathematical completion of pieces of computations. I predicted the 
many-world *appearances* from the mathematical fact that elementary arithmetic 
emulates all computations. In a first approximation, you can identify world 
with computations. Note that by computation, I mean the arithmetical object. 
Not its physical implementations, which is a more relative notion.




> 
>>> 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.

No, I admit that we see ourself living in a world. That is the case in dreams 
too.


> What does ontological commitment have to do with it? You are just obfuscating 
> again.


No, it is the key point. We can explain why numbers feel themselves living in a 
world, without assuming world, or living entities, just Robinson’s axioms.



> 
> 
>>>>> 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 
>>>> <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.

Ad hominem. 



> 
>> 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.


Not at all. This proves the existence of influence at a distance when we 
suppose that a measurement gives an outcome, but in QM without collapse, a 
measurement gives all outcomes, with varying relative probabilities.



> 
>> 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

We have discussed this, and I have never agree with this. The singlet state (in 
classical non GR QM) describes at all times an infinity of combinations of 
experimental result. Like Maudlin explains, in the Everett QM, it is not even 
clear how we could measure non-locality. The notion might even been senseless.




> -- 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.


Ad hominem.

Bruno

PS Oops, I see there are still 40 comments in this thread, but I have to go 
already. To be continued ...



> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.

-- 
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