> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au > > <mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > >> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > >> > >> On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com > >> <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > >> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > >> > >> According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that > >> Bob > >> gets only the ket |->, > >> > >> > >> That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that > >> state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it. > >> > >> > >> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a > >> fact is not an explanation. > > > > ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both > > Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero. > > > > I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from > > the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are > > contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the > > problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies. > > > > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a > > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite > > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were, > > for the MWI. > > Exactly. > > It is not an indirect argument for MWI because MWI has not provided an > alternative explanation.
I don’t believe in MW “I”. MW is just quantum mechanics without collapse. There is just one unitary evolution, which computable, even linear, and always local in the Hilbert space. The violation of Bell’s inequality shows the inseparability, or non-locality, but there is no FTL influence. It is up in the believer in FTL influence to shows them, but as you told me that you don’t believe in FTL influences, I am not sure what we are discussing. Now, I do believe that QM-with-collapse does introduce FTL influence, even in the case of looking to one particle just “diffusing”. If there is a physical collapse of the position of the particle, it has to be instaneous. > We might all reject FTL as implausible. But what are you proposing to replace > it? Magic?????? OK. We reject all FTL. You might think that some FTL remains in the MWI, but just the argument given by Price (although not as general as it could be) shows why such FTL are just local apparence in the branches where all resulting Bobs and Alices find themselves into. We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have proven about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the physical reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I think that your problem is that you take the notion of “world” too much seriously. I am ultra-busy, as I teach everyday, (+ a paper to finish), so might be slow down a little bit. I have just never seen any paper showing that in the QM-without-collapse, FTL influence exist. Of course, I do not believe that when Alice makes a measurement, the entire universe is changed. All interactions are local, and the singlet state only ascribes to Alice and Bob to the histories were the particle have been correlated, locally at the start. But they do not know in which “worlds” they re, and all worlds are always realised. Bruno > > 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTZRH-THV_%2B_45yUZJQ%2BR6uv2Khs8ibHfME1x%2BCqksL5A%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTZRH-THV_%2B_45yUZJQ%2BR6uv2Khs8ibHfME1x%2BCqksL5A%40mail.gmail.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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E149E31B-6625-40B2-BFC6-3357AB15FF92%40ulb.ac.be.
