> On 4 May 2018, at 20:35, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:58:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 4 May 2018, at 05:46, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:12:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 2 May 2018, at 10:53, [email protected] <> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:36:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List > <[email protected] <>> wrote: > > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords > interpretation. > > > The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you agree > (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many superposed > worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse postulate ONLY > to avoid the proliferation of the alternate worlds/states/minds. Everett is > just the guy who realise that the MW does not leads to a jelly quagmire of > everything, by taking the first person view (what he called subjective) of > the observers, as their memories get as much quasi orthogonal that the > results they could have attributed to a collapse. The collapse, and the > irreversibility is purely “subjective” (first person) and irreversible in > principle for *us*. To reverse the entire universal wave, we would need to go > outside the physical universe in some practical way, which, needless to say, > is rather difficult. > > But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the > collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were > rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have > they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read > somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an > action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable theory). > Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered to be a > plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance. > > Bruno > > Relativity affirms action at a distance. > > ? > > Relativity is born with Einstein trying, and succeeding, to eliminate the > action at a distance in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and in Maxwell ’s > theory of electromagnetism. > > Wrong. Completely wrong. Ever hear of the light cone in relativity? > > Well, yes of course. > > > > Light-like events are causally connected, which MEANS action at a distance, > > ? > > It means on the contrary that in the cone, we can have causal connection, > because they don’t need going faster than light. It means NO action at a > distance. > > > > > whereas space-like events are not. > > Which means no action at a distance (and that is why the EPR-BELL-Aspect > theory and experience is astonishing. The Debate here was about the idea that > with the MW theory, we keep the non-locality and Bell’s violation appearance > in single branche, but that by looking at the entire wave, we see that is a > subjective phenomenon. > > > > Relativity, and E&M after being modified by Einstein, affirm action at a > distance. > > Einstein said, after EPR, that if an action at a distance was physically > real, he would have prefer to be a plumber instead of a physicists ever > related to such magic, that he qualified as spooky. > > You're confused.
Avoid ad hominem remark, please. > By SPOOKY action at a distance, Einstein was referring to INSTANTANEOUS > action at a distance. By “action at a distance” we have always mean here the spooky one, which are the one that Aspect experience imposes on any mono-universe theory. Everyone agreed on this (what is sometimes debated is that such spooky action at a distance exists in a many-universe view). > In relativity and E&M, there is action at light speed, but not > instantaneously. This is action at a distance but not spooky because NOT > instantaneously. No one ever doubted this. You are the one coming up with “action at a distance” being the usual local one, which introduced the confusion. We would not talk of action AT a distance, if they were not instantaneous. That is what all Bell’s inequality violation or not is all about. Bruno > AG > > Relativity, and I would say Everett (non collapse) saves physics from action > at a distance. Even Newton knew quickly that his law of gravitation was > dubious, because it evolves action at a distance. SR and GR don’t, nor, Imo, > the relative state of QM without collapse. > > > > > Newton's gravity theory has instantaneous action at a distance. > > OK. > > > > It was modified in the form of GR, which allows for action at a distance at > the speed of light. > > That is not what we call “action at a distance”. If the action take the speed > of light or below, it is a un unproblematic propagation, at a distance, only. > > > > > Classical E&M allowed for fields and actions to propagate at the SoL, but not > instantaneously. You speculate authoritatively on the nature of the Cosmos > but have little to no knowledge of basic physics. AG > > > I have no clue which speculation you are talking about, and in this case, you > are the one confusing action-at-a-distance with action at light speed or > below, which would make this entire thread spurious. > > You might also try to use reason instead of showing emotion and using ad > hominem patronising tone which is only a sort of insult, which I take as lack > of argument. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > Einstein found physical indeterminacy, and physical action at a distance > making no sense at all. But with the MW theory, neither the indeterminacy, > nor the “action-at-distance” are physical. They are only local appearances. > (Like we expect with digital mechanism). > > My sense is that Einstein would have found the MWI "repellent" (to quote > Weinberg). > > Plausiby. But I guess Einstein would have found the MW far less conceptually > repellent than physical action at a distance. > > He would have found it excessively ornate, > Or excessively elegant. Somehow, Everett is to Copenhagen what General > relativity is to special direction, albeit in epistemological direction. > > Everett is just the preceding theory (Copenhagen , that > Schroedinger/Dirac/etc. equation + collapse (and a strange dualist theory)), > where Everett is just taking Schroedinger equation seriously. > > And then Everett confirmed the consequence of an even simpler theory, which > is actually a theorem already of Peano Arithmetic. The theory that there is a > universal machine. Now it is a theorem that all universal machine dreams that > they are all universal machine, and they define a “consciousness flux” which > differentiate into consistent, sound and unsound, theories and experiments, > and first person experience, justifying, testable, the core of all > geographical histories, the physical laws. > > Why add a collapse axiom? To satisfy the ego to be unique? The “many-world” > is only the wave equation, or the Heisenberg matrices, with an internal > relative states interpretation, which requires only the Gleason measure. > > or to quote Nietzsche when discussing Christianity, "rococo". AG > > > Which Christianity? Hypatia, who taught Plotinus Neoplatonism and Diophantus' > Mathematics in Alexandria was confronted, at about +400, with two types of > Christians. The educated one, knowing about Plato and discussing theology, > and well versed in mathematics (which was a prerequisite in theology) and > then a growing number of literalist radicals. Yet the emperor Constantin, who > will convert to christianism is still an open minded christian, tempering the > authoritarian *blasphemy*. It will take Justinian to call “pagan” or > “heretic” (I think) the non confessional theologian, basically forbidding > theology to science, and science to theology, enforcing their separation. It > is normal that the most fundamental science get stolen by authoritarian > powers (by definition: the original question was not much more than is > mathematics or physics or something else where we must search the first > principles?). > Enlightenment will be transformed when theology is back at the faculty of > science (as a domain of reason, even if it surfs at the limit of Reason, and > explore the surrational in between the provable and the false (the true but > not provable about us). > > The God/Non-God debate hides the original more interesting question; Physical > Universe or (Universal) Number Prestidigitation? > > If you believe that a Physical Universe can alter the destiny of the > arithmetic soul, you will have to explain how. > > Everett or mechanism follow the conceptual Occam rule: in the fundamental > matter, don’t add axioms just to make your wish true. Especially if they lead > to insuperable problems of interpretation. > > Bruno > > > > > > Il 28 aprile 2018 alle 23.01 [email protected] <> ha scritto: > > > > On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 5:55:16 AM UTC, scerir wrote: > > > > I think Schroedinger and his cat bear some responsibility. In trying to > debunk Born's probabilistic interpretation he appealed to the absurdity of > observation changing the physical state...even though no one had actually > proposed that. > > Brent > > > “The idea that the alternate measurement outcomes be not alternatives but all > really happening simultaneously seems lunatic to the quantum theorist, just > impossible. He thinks that if the laws of nature took this form for, let me > say, a quarter of an hour, we should find our surroundings rapidly turning > into a quagmire, a sort of a featureless jelly or plasma, all contours > becoming blurred, we ourselves probably becoming jelly fish. It is strange > that he should believe this. For I understand he grants that unobserved > nature does behave this way – namely according to the wave equation. . . . > according to the q > > ... > > -- > 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.
