> On 8 Oct 2019, at 14:18, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:25 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com > <mailto: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: >> > >> > 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. > > Local or non-local applies to physical 3-space, or space-time -- using the > word for Hilbert space is just a confusion. There are no space-time intervals > in Hilbert space -- the metric is all wrong.
But the interpretation of the wave is made by the entities supported by the waves. The wave described only the relative accessible histories. > > > 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. > > I don't know what you are talking about. All I am asking of you is that if > you believe that Aspect's results can be explained by local actions in many > worlds, then give me the derivation of the local mechanism. The simulation of the universal wave by a computer, to give the simplest. Or its simulation in the sigma_1 arithmetic. > > >> 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. > > The trouble is that Price's argument is just the standard non-local argument > from quantum mechanics. He does not make any use of the absence of collapse, > or of 'many worlds'. If you do not agree with this, reproduce the argument > and show how it differs from the standard quantum argument. > > > 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. > > No, I take the evidence of my experience of the world around me seriously. But you said it is quasi-classical, which is not an obvious notion at all. > And physics is the science of trying to understand this. No physics try to find the bet way to make prediction, by simplifying the picture in using an indemnity thesis between Mind and Reality, but in metaphysics, the notion of “physical universe” does not when we assume Mechanism. Digital Mechanism (+ computer science, arithmetic) explains, perhaps wrongly, but in testable way how the laws of physics originate and develop (somehow), so let us see. > If you dismiss it all as mere appearance, then so be it. But the appearances > still need to be explained. Exactly, and that is exactly what the universal machine already can explain, when you listen to her, which today asks still some involvement in mathematical logic (which is not much well taught). > > > 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 that is the point. Their histories are not correlated *locally* at the > start. The correlations do not originate when the singlet state was prepared: > the correlations arise only after Alice and Bob have made their measurements. That is possible by using some “quantum swapping” technic, but I am not sure this will not distract us. Usually Alice and Bob prepare their sate locally, like in aspect experience. It is a CA atom which emit correlated particles prepared locally. > It is their measurement results that are correlated, That is what promise the singlet state. > after all. And these do no exist before they make the measurements. That have all possible values locally, but Bob and Alice share those one which are correlated. > The trouble with your attempted account is that the correlated measurements > are made at space-like separations. That is the essential non-locality that > you have to explain. And you have never yet managed to do this. You always > revert to vague mystical hand-waving. Give me the mathematical derivation of > the quantum correlations. You are imposing to me a naive “many-world” theory, but I come from a naive many dream theory. Notions like “world” and part of the thing to make clearer, and somehow, I know that such things are very doubtful in the mechanist setting. Violation of the BI in one world seems to me to entails FTL (or super-determinism, or we are in a Bostromian simulation, or other conspiracy). Violation of the BI in “many-world”, and taking world as being any set of events closed by interaction seems to prevent the FTL, almost by construction, and indeed the universal wave is “the real thing” (not the worlds), except that with mechanism, even the universal wave is something emerging from all computations in arithmetic. Now, mechanism might be wrong, and the theories are possible. “My” theory is not my theory. It is the theory of the classical (oplatonist) universal machine believing one enough elementary operation as to understand its own functioning, and bet on it. It is both math and metaphysics, and it is testable, so let us be cautious before deciding who is wrong or not. 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/CAFxXSLSXYTwS1URHGPsXgKMZ_H3hxyVMNTZ_zNVWOKyQNM7pXg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSXYTwS1URHGPsXgKMZ_H3hxyVMNTZ_zNVWOKyQNM7pXg%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/83A2EF22-79FD-4A3E-8F71-314F2C404BCC%40ulb.ac.be.
