On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 10:56:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be <javascript:>> > > On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au > <javascript:>> wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be <javascript:>> > > You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL > influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue, because I use only > Everett QM to evaluate what mechanism predicts. I might try to send a post > why I do not follow your critic of Tipler and Baylock, some day. > > > That would be useful. I was perhaps dismissive of Tipler and Baylock > because their analyses were so obviously incorrect -- for different > reasons, however. > > > Nothing is obvious here. The debate is far from finished. > > Tipler simply collapsed the non-separable state without realizing that > that was a non-local operation. > > > I would suggest you elaborate on this in your paper. I see the non local > consideration, but I do not see any FTL appearing from that. The EPR-Bell > type of experience is non local, and bear on non separable entities, but > only the collapse makes them into physical FTL/instantaneity. > > > If you see the non-locality in Tipler's account, why is there still an > issue about non-locality? You are the only one obsessed about physical FTL. >
*Not the only one, and not obsessed. It's a real issue not adequately addressed or dismissed with a few carefully chosen words, like "non separable". AG* > I have repeatedly stressed that there is no physical FTL or instantaneous > transfer of physical information. It is epistemological. > *But there sure seems to be information transferred from one subsystem to the other to maintain spin conservation. How else can you conceptualize it? Perhaps there's more to information transfer than just what Bob can send to Alice, or vice versa? AG* > As you say EPR-Bell bear on non-separable states. That is all there is to > it. When you interact with a non-separable state you destroy the symmetry > and make it separable. There need not be any collapse or physical FTL. > > > Baylock made valiant attempts to introduce some measurements that were not > made in order to show that Bell assumed counterfactual definiteness, but > his attempts to reconstruct Bell's arguments in this way were so contrived > as to be laughable -- Bell's result does not depend on the assumption of > counterfactual definiteness. > > > You have not et convince me. > > > Why does Baylock introduce unnecessary references to experiments that were > not performed? If you can think of any reason other than a silly attempt to > deflect Bell's theorem, then tell me. > > Bruce > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
