# Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

```On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:35 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 08-04-2022 07:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:42 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Locality implies separability. If you disagree, show me the
> >>> mathematics of a local state (referring to distinct spacetime
> >> points)
> >>> that is not separable -- without begging the question, that is!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Locality refers to the dynamics of a theory, not to properties of some
> >> particular state.
> >
> > The properties of the state refer to the dynamics of the underlying
> > interactions. In quantum mechanics, the state vector tells you
> > everything that can be known about the consequences of the underlying
> > dynamics.
> >
>
> A Hamiltonian must be specified.
>```
```
If the Hamiltonian refers to more than one spacetime point, it is non-local.

>> In classical physics, you don't have non-separable
> >> states, but you can get to non-local correlations using only local
> >> dynamics.
> >
> > Only in the trivial, everyday, sense of Bertlmann's socks.
> >
> >> In QM you can get to non-separable states using only local
> >> dynamics.
> >
> > The non-separable state may be created at a single spacetime point,
> > but that is not a relevant consideration if the parts then move apart.
> >
> >> The mere fact that you can have non-classical entangled states
> >> does not imply that the dynamics of the theory is non-local
> >
> > The fact of non-separable entangled states, which are unique to
> > quantum mechanics, does imply non-locality.
> > Vide above....
> > You still have not shown me this magical local state that is
> > non-separable.
>
> What matters is that the Hamiltonian is local.
>

Your Hamiltonian might be local. But that is not going to explain the Bell
correlations which involve measurements at two distinct spacetime points.
You are just sidestepping the issue -- show me this magical local state
that is non-separable.

The fact that you keep ducking and weaving on this question, and similar
questions, suggests quite strongly that you do not have an answer -- that
you do not have a local account of the correlations, in MWI or in any other
theory.

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