On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:16 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
After all the ducking and weaving below, Bruno, I must reluctantly come to the conclusion that you are not actually interested in engaging with the issues that I have raised. I suspect that, like Wallace in his book, you have done so in private and realise that no simple account is going to work, so you obfuscate. Sad. Bruce > > On 8 Oct 2019, at 14:18, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:25 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish <[email protected]> >>> 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 > -- 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/CAFxXSLTHDJ_y1bfZ5QXG5L5%2BLEYY42fipqfZwevnAFT1skpi5g%40mail.gmail.com.
