> On 17 Apr 2018, at 17:40, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:21:33 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/16/2018 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 13 Apr 2018, at 20:53, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:>> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/13/2018 6:44 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote:
>>>> But since the momentum of either particle doesn't pre-exist the 
>>>> measurement, there is a FTL influence, which IS hard to understand. In 
>>>> fact, I doubt anyone does understand it. AG
>>> 
>>> What would it mean to "understand it" besides being able to use the 
>>> equations to make correct inferences?  
>> 
>> It could mean having a coherent ontology, a coherent phenomenology, and a 
>> coherent explanation of the relations between them.
> 
> I think "coherent" just means expressed in equations and the interpretation 
> of them that allows their application.  It's not some separate magic you add.
> 
> Brent.
> 
> If that were the case, why does the physics community makes such a fuss about 
> non-locality? Why all these discussions dating back many decades to Bohr vs 
> Einstein? We have the equations, so we can just calculate and move on. 
> Correct? AG 

In part this is what happens. When I made a talk on EPR, when I was student, 
the unanimity was that it was “philosophy” with no application. But a student 
knew Bell, … but that did not change their mind. At least after Aspect, the 
problem was taken more seriously by some.

The problem is that EPR (even without Bell) proves this (implicitly): which is 
that either there is only one universe/history, and then there are action at a 
distance, or there is a many-universes/histories. As I cannot even make sense 
of action at a distance, I took Aspect experience as a strong evidence for the 
many-histories structure, then it is also very natural with the mechanist 
hypothesis, because it is a theorem of elementary arithmetic that all 
computations are emulated in the arithmetical reality, like it is a theorem 
that an infinity of (all) primes exists (Euclid) in the arithmetical reality.

Bruno





> 
> -- 
> 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.

Reply via email to