> On 17 Jul 2018, at 14:26, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.
Indeed, but it makes it trivial. It cannot been used to FTL signalling, nor possible non-signalling FTL influence. With a collapse theory, or an hidden variable theory, there is still non FTL signalling possible, but the violation of Bell’s inequality needs non-signalling FTL influence. > 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 That is a bit ambiguous. The world do not split at once, but at the decoherence speed, so to speak. It is only the superposition of states which propagates by interaction. > This has some ill-defined aspects to it, The problem is in the word “world”, and splitting. It is is only subjective (conscious) differentiation. > such as what is the level of complexity? I see this with computationalism, actually. But for quantum mechanics the level of complexity does not play any role. It is more a question of isolation. Even Babbage machine is a quantum computer, and it would be usable if we could isolate some of its part, which of course is practically impossible. > 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. Bt without the MWI, some non-signalling FTL influence are needed? That is why I take Aspect experience (if not the two slit with one particle "experience”) as strong evidence of many worlds/histories. Bruno > > 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] > <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.
