> On 17 Apr 2018, at 12:52, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] >> <http://gmail.com/> 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.
Interesting. Don’t hesitate to elaborate. Perhaps to give a reference. Redhead book does not agrees the many-world issue at all. His non-locality seems to take the mono-universe idea for granted. Bruno > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > 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 [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.
