> On 10 Oct 2019, at 23:43, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:16 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[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.
I will wait for an argument. I think you have an inconsistent interpretation of QM without collapse. In case you really sucked in bringing a proof of FTL action in your QM-without-collapse theory, I would suggest to correct it until this do no more happen. Maybe that could require a quantum treatment of what is space (space-time) which does not really exist. By the way I proceed, non FTL are guarantied to not occur. To make ad hominem remark like “you obfuscate” show some lack of seriousness, only. Bruno > > Sad. > > Bruce > >> On 8 Oct 2019, at 14:18, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:25 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish <[email protected] >>> > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTHDJ_y1bfZ5QXG5L5%2BLEYY42fipqfZwevnAFT1skpi5g%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTHDJ_y1bfZ5QXG5L5%2BLEYY42fipqfZwevnAFT1skpi5g%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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/00DC0FF1-794F-42B9-9C99-1A083126D777%40ulb.ac.be.
