> On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:04, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/16/2018 8:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> I would like to think that this were the case, but you keep coming up with >>> irrelevancies that contradict the straightforward account of these >>> phenomena. If you forget about the metaphysics and just concentrate on >>> Alice and Bob making real measurements and recording them in their lab >>> books, then all these superfluities vanish. There are no counterfactuals, >>> no worries with other unobserved worlds, and Bell's theorem goes through >>> exactly as he intended. Many-worlds does not invalidate Bell's argument. In >>> fact, deflecting Bell's theorem would do no more than allow for the >>> possibility of a local hidden variable account. That alone does not prove >>> that many-worlds is local -- that would still have to be established by >>> developing such a local hidden variable theory. No one has to date >>> developed such a theory. But since Bell's theorem has not been deflected, >>> we do not have to worry about such contingencies. >> >> >> So we really agree. You have been probably misguided when trying to defend >> John Clark who claimed that there are still FTL influence in Everett, when >> the Bell’s inequality relations implies FTL only when we assume unique >> outcomes of the experiences (i.e. some collapse, or Bohm’s type of hidden >> variable). >> >> No need of patronizing remark either, especially when rephrasing what I was >> just saying. If you agree that there is no FTL in the many-worlds, we do >> agree, that was the point I was making to J. Clark. Not sure why you >> defended it, especially that you have shown implicitly that you have no >> problem with the step 3 of the Universal Dovetailer Paradox. You might >> eventually understand that with mechanism, Everett’s task is still >> incomplete, as we need to justify the wave from all computations, as seen >> from some self-referential modes (fortunately and constantly implied by >> incompleteness). > > Not to reignite the argument, but it originated because Bruno claimed that > MWI does away with non-locality in QM.
Precisely, I claim MWI does with the FTL influence. (Non locality + single world (or hidden variable)) entails FTL. (MW + Non locality) does not. Bruno > > Brent > > -- > 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. -- 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.
