From: *Brent Meeker* < <>>
On 4/15/2018 8:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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.

This is false. Even in Everettian QM there are only two possible outcomes for each spin measurement: this leads to two distinct worlds for each particle of the pair. Hence only 4 possible parallel universes. Where do you get the idea that there are infinitely many parallel universes? This is not part of Everettian QM, or any other model of QM. But even if you can manufacture an infinity of universes, you still have not shown how this removes the non-locality inherent in the quantum formalism.

Bruno's ontology is all possible computations, so he's already assumed (countably) infinite worlds. When there are only four or two outcomes of an experiment it just means his worlds are divided into four or two equivalent subsets.

That might very well be the case. But then that has absolutely nothing to do with Everett or quantum mechanics. Bruno's long-held claim is that Everett's many worlds obviate the need for non-locality. But he has never been able to produce a coherent argument to this effect. It is always this bullshit about an infinite number of worlds -- as if that made any difference at all.

I think Bruno should really face up to the fact that his "comp" has not produced any coherent quantum theory, so he should just stop making unsubstantiated claims about what his theory does or does not say about the facts of quantum mechanics. If Bruno wants to make claims about Everettian QM, then he should confine himself to that well-defined theory, and not keep obfuscating by referring to his own idiosyncratic ideas.


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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to