On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 5:31:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Apr 2018, at 17:03, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:49:13 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:07:41 AM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>> >>>> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5, [email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, April 14, 2018 at 8:32:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> I have been around the block on these matters with you. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *In your imagination. AG* >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have been stuck on these matters since the early days of Vic's >>>> discussion forum. In spite of mine and other's efforts you keep "not >>>> getting it." I can't write a treatise here. It would be a waste of time. >>>> If >>>> you want to read a book on this look at Redhead's book on the metaphysics >>>> of QM. I can't advise any further, but you will have to study this in >>>> greater depth and be willing to cast intuitive and metaphysical baggage >>>> aside. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>> >>> I haven't been stuck on anything. As I recall, VIc fell in love with his >>> theory that time reversal explains non locality. Few took his explanation >>> seriously, which had many holes (proof by hand waving as it was, and there >>> are precious few, if any professional physicists who take his proposal >>> seriously. It was in one of his early books IIRC, and no references to it >>> in the literature. And physicists are all over the map on this one, but >>> most find it baffling. I know what you've done. You've just cobbled >>> together some words that make you happy and create the illusion you >>> undIstand the phenomenon. Now you assume an arrogant position. You can say >>> the pairs are non separable and I wouldn't disagree with the words, but >>> when one side is measured randomly, the issue is how the other side adjusts >>> to keep momentum conserved if it is space-like separated. If the subject >>> was solved, as you falsely claim, there wouldn't be any resort to the MWI >>> to allege explanations. Like I said, you can enjoy your words, and they may >>> fool yourself, but not me. AG >>> >> >> If you came off your high horse for a moment, you'd realize that Vic >> introduced time reversal to explain non locality because he couldn't >> understand it otherwise! And he was writing to explain an ostensibly >> inexplicable result because there was an unfulfilled need in the community >> for a model. So unless Vic was a total moron when it came to physics, the >> understanding of the phenomena is obviously not clear and apparent as you >> would have it, your advanced metaphysical understanding notwithstanding. AG >> > > Never heard of Redhead. Never heard of any reference to it in any > discussion of non locality. > > > Redhead’s book is very nice and good, but Imo, Maudlin’s book (on non > separability) is better, and a more easy read. The selected papers by Bell > are rather interesting too. But non locality is always studied in a more or > less explicit mono-universe view, and few address the question of > “influence at a distance” in the many-world view. Maudlin sum this briefly > as an open problem to even define what “non local” could mean in the > many-world (non collapse) picture, except for the Bohm pilot theory, where > the potential guiding the wave do implies influence at a distance and in > the past (which is a good reason to me for not believing in a collapse. > > > > Maybe he's an outlier, like Joy Christian, and many find his arguments > weak, or maybe he figured it out. What's the title of his book? > > > “Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism” Clarendon Oxford, 1987. > > Note that “incompleteness” here refer to Einstein EPR, not to Gödel! > > Tim Maudlin’s book is > > “Quantum Non-Locality & Relativity”, Blackwell, 1994. > > > I do have Mauldin's book and read it "back in the day." I think entanglement is best viewed according to quotient groups and it is modular.
LC -- 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.
