On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:23 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >*many MWI enthusiasts claim that many worlds does away with Bell >> non-locality -- giving a purely local explanation for violations of the >> Bell inequalities. This, to my mind, was the last gasp of MWI realists* >> > > MWI realists? How can Many Worlds be Realistic? Realism means things must > not only exist but exist in one and only one definite state even when they > are not being observed; so whatever else it may be Many Worlds is *not* > realistic. And we know for a experimental fact that Bell's inequality is > violated, therefore simple algebra forces us to conclude that at least > one of the following things must be wrong, perhaps all 3: > > 1) Realism > 2) Superdeterminism > 3) Locality > > Although I can't prove it's wrong I find it almost impossible to believe > Superdeterminism is true, but Locality might be. > Superdeterminism is extremely unlikely, regardless of what 't Hooft says. Locality is certainly ruled out. Bell's result is a theorem, not a conjecture. And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interpretations. I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. But Einsteinian realism is certainly false -- it is ruled out experimentally. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSya17yDyxSJb_5e1gWb-XFWZ6UDkWLyv4dzWUWicWHig%40mail.gmail.com.
