On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:40:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 May 2018, at 20:35, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:58:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 May 2018, at 05:46, [email protected] 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). >
*You're confusing the issue with your home-grown definitions. Notice what Einstein said: "SPOOKY action at a distance". What is SPOOKY? INSTANTANEOUS is SPOOKY. ERGO, spooky action at a distance MEANS instantaneous action at a distance. AG* > * 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 o > > ... -- 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.
