On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:16 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 04-04-2022 01:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:52 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> MWI is deterministic, but it's not a hidden variable theory. Bell's
> >> theorem is proved by assuming you have local hidden variables that
> >> specify the outcomes of experiments and then deriving inequalities
> >> that
> >> certain correlations should satisfy.
> >
> > The central assumption that Bell makes is that of locality, or
> > separability. He shows that any local (separable) theory must give
> > correlations that satisfy the inequalities. Whereas QM, and
> > experiment, show that these inequalities are violated.
> >
> Determinism is also assumed

It is not. Bell made no such assumption. I require textual proof of such a

> QM is not deterministic. And locality is
> not the same as separability.

It is. You show me a separable system that is not local, or a local system
that is not separable.

Humean supervenience, which regards all of physics as supervening on
isolated local point-like objects, is local by construction. It has no
non-separable states by definition.  The argument is simple:

    All local states are separable (By definition of locality and
    Therefore non-separable states are not local. (Modus tollens)
    Quantum mechanics embodies non-separable states.
    Therefore quantum mechanics contains non-local states.

>> QM violates the Bell inequalities,
> >> which means that there cannot be an underlying local hidden variable
> >> model for QM. But QM itself can be local,
> >
> > That is not a valid conclusion. Any local account of the correlations
> > can always be cast as a hidden variable theory -- if for no other
> > reason than if there is a local mechanism at play, this mechanism is
> > not evident in the standard theory (therefore hidden). Everettian many
> > worlds, if they could actually play this role, would be counted as
> > hidden variables for Bell's analysis. Bell does not specify what form
> > these hidden variables should take.
> If all outcomes are realized then there cannot exist hidden variables.

That is a rather arbitrary assertion. And it is not true. Hidden variables
are variables or things that are not seen.

> The outcome of experiments is fundamentally stochastic in the MWI.

The outcome of experiments is stochastic in ordinary QM -- QM is not

> >> Bells's theorem does not
> >> address theories that are not local hidden variable theories.
> >>
> >> QM itself provides a local explanations for all experimental
> >> outcomes, including for the Bell correlations.
> >
> > Then give it!
> I'll write up the local account for a Bell-type experiment performed in
> a quantum computer.

I have seen attempts at such accounts. The trouble is that Aspect's
experiments were not performed in a quantum computer! It is Aspect's
experiments that are to be explained.

It would be more interesting if you could give such an account for a
classical computer. What is it that is significant about the QC? It is
generally understood that a quantum computer might give a speed-up on some
tasks, but it cannot actually do anything that a classical computer could
not do, given sufficient time.

The interesting question is why quantum computer accounts do not correspond
to laboratory experience.  I think it has something to do with the
formation of permanent records. But you might have a better account.


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