On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 10:45 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 6:06 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>  the key is understanding what "the collapse of the wave function"
>>> means physically. Many Worlds says everything that is not forbidden is
>>> mandatory so everything Schrodinger's wave equation does not rule out
>>> does physically happen, so "collapse" just means that different solutions
>>> to Schrodinger's equation are ... well... different. And the great virtue
>>> of tautologies is that they're always true. Richard Feynman said all the
>>> weirdness in quantum mechanics can be found in the  2 slit experiment, so I
>>> will use that to illustrate the point. This is how I think Many Worlds
>>> would describe the two-slit experiment and several variations of it.
>> *> I take the fact that you have changed the subject to a many worlds
>> account of the two-slit experiment as clear evidence that you do not have a
>> local many worlds account of the question at issue, namely, a local account
>> of Bell-type correlations.*
> Just exchange the 2 slits in the experiments that I described with a
> polarizer and then the world would split because of polarization
> differences not because of which slip the photon went through, or if you
> prefer exchange the photons with electrons and the 2 slits with a
> Stern-Gerlach magnet, and then the world will split because of differences
> in spin of the electron; after that everything I said was still hold true,
> and nowhere would there be a need to invoke non-local influences. And you
> can build any Bell-type experiment you like with polarization or with spin,

Yes. But you have to show how non-separable states can exhibit locality.
Or, at least, you are required to show in detail how the correlation arise
locally, in many worlds, or in any other theory.

> *> Saibal's account below is every bit as non-local as the original
>> quantum account.*
> I don't know what you mean by "the original quantum account" but 
> Superdeterminism
> is the only way to have determinism, locality, and reality, nothing else
> can give you all three. Superdeterminism is also very very dumb, it's so
> dumb I find it astonishing that anybody takes it seriously when it has the
> same intellectual gravitas as  geocentrism,
> *> You equivocate on the word "world".*
> I did? I thought I was being clear, for these purposes the words "world"
> and "universe" are interchangeable and have exactly the same meaning they
> have when used in any other context. I meant nothing new or exotic in the
> words.

Worlds are disjoint and do not interact. Your wave function components are
not disjoint until decoherence makes them non-interacting.

> *> What you are really talking about here are just components of a
>> superposed wave function.*
> The word "just" in the above is not powerful enough to destroy the Many 
> World's
> idea, you're gonna have to do one hell of a lot better than that.

I am not trying to demolish many worlds. I am just pointing out that it is
no more a local theory than is any collapse theory.


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 

Reply via email to