On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 8:22 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> That's not the QFT version of EPR, it's his own personal version of EPR.

QFT is never used in the analysis of EPR -- that is argued in strictly
non-relativistic QM.

If it were true that QFT were to imply what he says, then the MWI would
> never had the support that it has today. Did physicists who are/were
> MWI enthusiasts like Bryce DeWitt,  John Wheeler, Sidney Coleman, David
> Deutsch, Sean Carroll etc. overlook this or is it more likely that
> Bruce's argument is simply wrong?

Since my argument concerning EPR has never been an argument against MWI --
merely an argument against the contention that MWI gives a local account of
the Bell correlations, your charge here is, as most of your charges against
me, misdirected.

Also there are many physicists who are
> MWI critics, they never invoke that argument against the MWI either.

I also am an MWI critic -- I think that theory has serious and irreparable
flaws, but EPR itself is not one of them. The argument that MWI is strictly
local is just a mistake, and not an argument against MWI itself.

But we have argued the case for non-locality in EPR for some time now. The
debate is becoming repetitive, and has led to many red herrings and
irrelevant side issues. Since I have not been able to formulate an argument
that has convinced Saibal, there seems little point in continuing the


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