> On 23 Apr 2018, at 13:10, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:43, Brent Meeker < >>> <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/2018 6:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> From: Brent Meeker <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/22/2018 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>>> It follows from both QM and Comp. If Alice and Bob are space-separated, I >>>>> cannot even makes sense of how you can measure correlations, given that >>>>> once they are separated, whatever result they got, will be shared with >>>>> different Alice and Bob in different branch. I am not even sure we can >>>>> define what could be an action at a distance in the quantum formalism. >>>>> The notion does not even makes sense when we assume special relativity. >>>>> The only reason to believe this is the habit to think that there is only >>>>> one bob and one Alice, which makes no sense once separated, unless they >>>>> are correlated with a third observer, but then, again by looking at the >>>>> wave without collapse, there will be no action at a distance. The no >>>>> locality is only an appearance due to the fact that we belong to >>>>> infinities of histories, and cannot known which one we are in. >>>>> >>>>> It depends on what you mean by "action at a distance". The theory you >>>>> are depending on for these pronouncements entails that, on a MW picture, >>>>> some of the possible worlds have probabilities that go to zero as a >>>>> result of an interaction at Alice or at Bob. So an interaction at one of >>>>> them changes the probabilities at the other. >>>> >>>> For Bruno, it seems that "non-locality" means "action at a distance", >>>> where he interprets that to mean that there is some superluminal transfer >>>> of information, >> >> I prefer to distinguish non-locality (inseparability), action at a distance, >> and transfer of information at a distance. Even in a mono-universe theory, >> the action at a distance exists (by EPR-BELL) but cannot be used to transfer >> information. But in the multiverse, we have the inseparability, but we don’t >> have any action-at-a-distance. At least that is what I am arguing for. > > That is what you are arguing for. But you have not as yet put forward any > clear and convincing argument that you can succeed in your search for such a > theory. You have to take the accepted formalism for the singlet state and > develop a unitary theory that avoids non-locality. I have recently reproduced > the argument given by several MWI advocates, and have shown that it does not > avoid the non-locality intrinsic to the non-separability of the singlet state > wave function. Your challenge is to start from the same state and apply > unitary evolution to reach a different conclusion.
I did it, and later I refer to Price simpler treatment. Deustch did the same in the Heisenberg picture. See the answer by Saibal, I can hardly do better. > >>>> by tachyons or some such. And he is quite right to say that there is no >>>> such interaction or dynamics in quantum theory. Because if "non-locality" >>>> meant some superluminal transfer of information, by particles or something >>>> else, then that would be giving a *local* explanation of non-locality, >>>> which is a contradiction. So non-locality can never mean "action at a >>>> distance", it can only mean that the theory is such that the state is not >>>> separable, and changing one end automatically changes the other, just as >>>> pushing one side of a billiard ball moves the other side as well. >>>> (Ignoring the problems of a relativistic explanation of extended physical >>>> objects. This is not a particularly good analogy, but it is the best I can >>>> think of at short notice!) In quantum mechanics, there can be no >>>> "mechanical" explanation of the non-locality inherent in the non-separable >>>> state. That is why we call it "non-locality" rather than "action at a >>>> distance". >>>> >>>> I acknowledge that there are linguistic problems here, but that is just >>>> the nature of quantum mechanics, and we have to live with it. Trying to >>>> "explain" this fact further is bound to fail, because there is no deeper >>>> explanation. >> >> Of course, I do believe that there is a deeper and simpler explanation. QM >> seems very plausibly be only how the numbers can structured arithmetic from >> their indexical internal points of view. It is the canonical logic, imposed >> by incompleteness, on what is observable ([]p & <>t (& p)) for them. > > Your own versions of mechanism and/or "comp" do not work here, because you > have claimed that MWI itself, within the standard formulae of quantum theory, > obviates non-locality. Obviates action at a distance, but not the quantum inseparability, which is simply linearity, which should be derived from Mechanism, and steps have been done in that direction, as physics must be given by self-reference statistics on semi-computable predicate (by reasoning, with the antic epistemological nuance given by Plato and followers, but also motivated by many different thought experience), and that gives quantum logic right where expected. > You have to reconcile the acknowledged non-separability with a local > explanation. > This, I contend, is impossible. Prove me wrong......... > See my papers. We get a quantum logic for the observable. The quantum/MW aspect comes just from a theorem provable in elementary arithmetic: no universal machine can know which computations support her (below its substitution level) there is an infinity of such (non distinguishable directly). Both in QM and in indexical digital mechanism, we are multiplied by what we are independent of. > >>> I think one way to look at it is, if a hidden variable explanation requires >>> that the hidden variable be FTL, then the phenomenon is non-local. >>> >>> If find it hard to see how Bruno can say whether or not his theory is >>> non-local since he has not derived any concept of space, time, and a >>> Lorentz metric. I would think that would be a minimum before you could >>> claim a theory had not FTL signaling. >> >> >> I was not reasoning in any theory. I was just saying that EPR-BELL entails >> non-locality only in hidden variable theories in a mono-universe theory, but >> that deriving action-at-a-distance, from EPR-BELL in one branch of the >> multiverse is not valid (without assuming Mechanism). It is pure applied >> logic. > > That makes no sense. ? > >> Of course, all physical theories which assumes any number of universe >> different from zero are wrong, so even Everett is wrong, but that is another >> chapter of metaphysics, and I am not there in this discussion in physics >> (not to confuse with metaphysics unless we put the Aristotelian metaphysics >> in the hypothesis, which many do that implicitly. > > Make your argument in the terms of standard physics, MWI or many-minds ,or > whatever. Because that is where your claim resides, and it is currently > unproved. All what I say has been proven. It is the partisan of telepathy which should refines their argument. > Metaphysics plays no role in what you are required to do to make good on your > frequent boasts. Ad hominem remarks only make your point less convincing. Bruno > > Bruce > > -- > 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.
