> On 15 Jun 2019, at 15:35, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 2:01:38 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:10 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: > On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 5:48:22 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > This is physics and a range of experiments confirm this. The Bell inequality, > to take this argument further, with polarizers is if one polarizer is set 30 > degrees relative to the other, then think of the photons as polarized in the > way a nail has a direction. 30 degrees is a third of a right angle, and so if > we think of the photons as being like nails aligned in a certain direction, > then at least 1/3rd of these nails would be deflected away. This is why an > upper bound of 2/3rds of the photons in a classical setting will make it > through, or less will by attenuating effects etc. But the quantum result > gives 3/4. This is a violation of the Bell inequality, and with polarizers it > is found in a "quantization on the large." Of course sensitive experiments > work with one photon at a time, but the same result happens. This is done to > insure there are not some other statistical effect at work between photons. > > LC > > > Bell's theorem is wrong. If p_hid(X) is the distribution of hidden variables, > and p_det(D) is the distribution of detector settings, and p(X,D) is the > joint distribution, then it assumes > > p(X,D) = p_hid(X)·p_det(D) > > an unwarranted (religious fundamentalist) assumption. > > The trouble with your fundamentalist assumption is that it does not work in > real physics. You have only to give a plausible dynamical model of how this > works for the Aspect experiment, say, and we will accept that you have a > point. But you are unable to do this. I would lay long odds on the fact they > you will be unable to do it, even given an infinite amount of time and > computing power. > > Bruce > > > People can go though life believing whatever they want. > > @philipthrift > > This is not about beliefs. The nonlocal aspects of QM are verified with many > experiments that have been repeated. The Aspect experiment of the 80s was a > cornerstone on a verification of Bell's theorem. This is what nature does, > and what nature "IS" is what nature "DOES.”
OK. If you define “nature” in this way, physics is typically not local, as a trivial consequence of mechanism (any piece of matter depends on the entire universal dovetailing in arithmetic). And nature only does things, without ever existing as an object. It is the loci of where the consciousness flux in arithmetic get deep enough to stabilise the consciousness of “histories”. Note that there is a sort of “trivial” truing-tropic retrocauslity: you survive only in the worlds where you continue to survive. That is what we get when we add the consistency nuance <>t to provability ([]p). This introduce a quantisation of all the continua experienced by the observers (basically []<>p, which provides a purely arithmetical interpretation of quantum logic, with an intuitive “many-histories” aspect. It is a matter of work to refute this theory, which explains rather well both consciousness and the appearance of matter. The quantum aspect of nature is due to the digital view a machine can have when she look below her substitution level). Although I have not yet a proof that the physics “in the head of the universal number/machine” violate Bell’s inequality, I can argue you would need some miracle for this not to be the case, as it is a priori extremely not boolean nor intuitionistic. We need to optimise the G* theorem prover to solve this. All non local aspect, as well as all indeterministic aspect comes only from the ignorance, unavoidable for any universal number, on which computations support her below the substitution level (and there is a continuum there) and above the substitution level, where there is a countable of distinguishable universal machine explanations. >From a *theoretical physician” point of view, mechanism implies a very deep >new invariance for the physical laws: the laws are independent of the choice >of the phi_i. Both for the ontology (which needs only to be sigma_1 complete, >i.e Turing universal) and for the definition of the observers, which is >basically just a universal number with rational belief (that is arithmetically >true beliefs close for the modus opens inference rules). It is a very strong invariant: physics is the same for all universal machine (with or without Mechanism). When adding the assumption of Mechanism (aka Computationalism) that invariant becomes so strong as to define the purpose of physics: to predict future, when belonging to infinitely many histories below and above the substitution level). The theology (and thus the physics) of the universal Turing machine is the same for the relativized Turing universal machine on Oracle or on Other universal machines, but usually a universal machine cannot distinguish a (non computable) oracle from the output of some deep (necessary long) computation(s). 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ed8c409-4d4d-42c9-914b-69f480714ceb%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ed8c409-4d4d-42c9-914b-69f480714ceb%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F3914088-E398-48F2-BCCB-0081FACC611E%40ulb.ac.be.
