On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 6:45:17 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 16 Jul 2018, at 23:04, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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 >
MWI does not negate nonlocality. MWI just says that a shift in entanglement phase from a system to an reservoir of set according to some level of complexity results in the phenomenological apparent splitting of worlds This has some ill-defined aspects to it, such as what is the level of complexity? There must be some Kolmogoroff complexity threshold, but that is not defined. However, this does not remove nonlocality and it does not mean there is some nonlocal signalling in any form. LC -- 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.
