On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 5:31:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Apr 2018, at 17:03, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:49:13 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 2:30:31 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 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, agrays...@gmail.com >>>> 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 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.
