On 3/23/2022 7:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 12:34 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 3/22/2022 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 4:01 PM Brent Meeker
<meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/2022 7:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Actually, that is where I started. I assumed that Alice and
Bob were both able to collect results from N trials before
they met. Then there are 2^N copies of each experimenter,
and a potential (2^N)^(2^N) pairs when they meet. The
trouble to be explained is that there are actually only 2^N
pairs in a real experiment, each with inequality-violating
correlations. What has happened to all the extra pairings
that MWI must produce? (Most of which have correlations
violating the quantum predictions.)
Don't you mean (2^N)x(2^N).
Probably. Both Alice and Bob split into 2^N copies for binary
results. So each of the 2^N Alice's splits into 2^N further
copies, one for each copy of Bob.
Why would Alice split again for each copy of Bob. There's no QM
involved.
There is. That is what MWI predicts: for every splitting of Bob, the
whole world, including copies of Alice, also splits.
OK, I see your point. I think that's one reading of it. But if MWI is
local, as Bruno and smitra contend, the non-locality of the
wave-function can't have the effect of splitting Alice when Bob measures
spacelike relative to Alice. As I understood it, they were claiming
it's a virtue of MWI that this FTL stuff doesn't happen.
That is certainly the case if both Alice and Bob measure independent
particles that they prepare themselves. The question is, "Why are
there fewer joint branches when they measure entangled particles?" If
you consider that all (2^N)*(2^N) branches with Alice-Bob pairings
exist in the entangled case as well as the independent case, as MWI
would predict if the measurements are truly local and independent,
then a large number of the couples are going to find correlations that
violate the quantum predictions. The fact that all experiments have
found correlations that agree with QM is then hard to explain.
Each Alice and each Bob has seen N events and has recorded them as
a binary number of N bits in their notebook. They are
quasi-classical observers and they're going to meet in the
future. If there are not (2^N)x(2^N) meetings there must be some
quantum magic that it is eliminating or otherwise weighting them.
That is the point that I am making. There must be some fairy dust or
other magic at play if the MWI predictions are to agree with QM. As I
have said before, if some of the branches have zero weight or zero
probability, then such branches can never have been created. There is
no mechanism which could make them vanish only when Alice and Bob
meet. In many of the Everettian apologies, capital is made of the fact
that the Alice-Bob meeting is also an interaction. But that
interaction is not (or need not be) of the sort that could remove
unwanted branches.
Right. That was my point in having them light-hours apart so the
meeting is classical comparison of notebooks.
Brent
For example, if Alice and Bob exchange results by email, there is no
interaction that could possibly eliminate branches, or change data in
their notebooks so that everything worked out. Such notions are in the
realm of fantasy and magic.
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTbQz5wzXfEZ563Eu_BS2%3DhH%2BUU_XYEm9KHijyOPCnxmQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTbQz5wzXfEZ563Eu_BS2%3DhH%2BUU_XYEm9KHijyOPCnxmQ%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/27c7894d-d532-06c3-9da7-079bd8e74d1c%40gmail.com.
