R: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
Messaggio originale Da: agrayson2...@gmail.com Data: 05/09/2016 0.52 A: "Everything List" Cc: Ogg: Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: Messaggio originale Da: "Alan Grayson" Data: 30/08/2016 18.23 A: "Everything List" Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf FWIW, I just meant that no possible signalling (due to the random nature of the measurements) does not, IMO, mean we don't have FTL transmission of information. I read Bruce's comment to imply otherwise, perhaps mistakenly. AG ### I do not remember Bruce's comment. I think FTL information between two observers and FTL information (or "influences") between entangled pairs are different things. But there is another problem: is space-time independent of entanglement? ### Hi Alan, read also https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308 https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795 -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote: > > > > Messaggio originale > Da: "Alan Grayson" > > Data: 30/08/2016 18.23 > A: "Everything List"> > Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose > > Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling > theorem puts this issue to rest. AG > http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf > > FWIW, I just meant that no possible signalling (due to the random nature of the measurements) does not, IMO, mean we don't have FTL transmission of information. I read Bruce's comment to imply otherwise, perhaps mistakenly. AG > > ### Hi Alan, read also > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308 > > https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795 > > -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
R: Re: Aaronson/Penrose
Messaggio originale Da: "Alan Grayson" Data: 30/08/2016 18.23 A: "Everything List" Ogg: Re: Aaronson/Penrose Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling theorem puts this issue to rest. AGhttp://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf ### Hi Alan, read also https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308 https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795 -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Aaronson/Penrose
Bruno, thank you for a detailed response. Most of it is above my pay grade, but I will check some of your links and see what I can make of them. As for the MWI, I have a simple approach. If I went to LV and played a slot machine for a single trial or outcome, and someone asked me what happened to the other thousands of outcomes I didn't get, I'd think that would be a crazy question. But that's the question some physicists ask when they are confronted with the non-linearity of collapse in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Accepting non linearity and actual time irreversibility (not FAPP) is an easier concept to accept than the real or fictional other worlds necessary to support the MWI. BTW, the time irreversibility is not FAPP since the collapsed wf, when inserted back into the SWE, recovers only itself exactly at an earlier time, but not the original wf which collapsed. AG On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 8:16:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, > >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob >> have >> to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or >> (-,-') >> worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything >> significant to the discussion. >> >>> >> >>> That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which >> are >> >>> necessarily there in QM+collapse. >> >> >> >> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof. >> > >> > By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows >> from >> > linearity. >> >> Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean >> absolutely nothing. > > > > This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion. > > Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not > understand or disagree with. > > > > "locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of >> total nonsense. >> > > > OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other > posts. Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and there > and then adding to the prejudices. > > To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame of > the non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that without > any > collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the linearity of the > SWE > ensure that at any time everything is local, even computable, in the > global > third person picture. > > Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p > sense in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in arithmetic) > the > indeterminacies and the non local appearances are purely epistemic (first > person or first person plural). > > > > > > >> > There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality >> violation >> > is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, or >> > Bohmian particules. >> > I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that >> there >> > was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are >> real >> > action at a distance. So I think the point has been made. >> >> There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell >> non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over >> thinking that non-locality means FTL action. >> > > Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling > theorem puts this issue > to rest. AG > > > In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this, > I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark above, he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission of information, and that since the no-signal theorem denies that, your claim (or any claim of FTL transmission) is falsified. Guess what, you were completely wrong. I was the one who denies the FTL.
Re: What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain
On 04 Sep 2016, at 09:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 29.08.2016 um 15:02 schrieb Bruno Marchal: ... Irrealism on the other hand states the the external world is a part of the virtual world. I guess that Bruno's theory is close to irrealism. Except it is not a theory, but a theorem (in the mechanist theory, which of course is not mine). To avoid irrealism, you need to do a strong ontological commitment, which contradicts mechanism + the usual weak use of Occam. The author does not seem to be aware of the first person indeterminacy , nor that mechanism and materialism are incompatible (unless introducing an infinite amount of magic). Few are aware of this, still, and I am not much astonished, given what I am reported very often. I have informed the author about your paper. Let us see what happens. Well, ... thanks. Best, Bruno -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Aaronson/Penrose
On 03 Sep 2016, at 21:02, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:52:55 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, wrote: On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob have to look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or (-,-') worlds they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything significant to the discussion. >>> >>> That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which are >>> necessarily there in QM+collapse. >> >> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof. > > By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows from > linearity. Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean absolutely nothing. This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion. Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not understand or disagree with. "locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of total nonsense. OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other posts. Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and there and then adding to the prejudices. To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame of the non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that without any collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the linearity of the SWE ensure that at any time everything is local, even computable, in the global third person picture. Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p sense in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in arithmetic) the indeterminacies and the non local appearances are purely epistemic (first person or first person plural). > There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality violation > is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, or > Bohmian particules. > I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that there > was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are real > action at a distance. So I think the point has been made. There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over thinking that non-locality means FTL action. Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no- signalling theorem puts this issue to rest. AG In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this, I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark above, he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission of information, and that since the no-signal theorem denies that, your claim (or any claim of FTL transmission) is falsified. Guess what, you were completely wrong. I was the one who denies the FTL. My text may have confused you. I thought you went to the MWI to deny FTL in this one-world. That's what I meant. But Bruce seems to deny FTL in this world, by saying the phenomenon is just a property of the wf, and in his appeal to the no-signalling theorem; as if to say, if you can't send information, there can't be FTL. But here "send information" in the context of no-signalling theorem just means you can't send a message of choice. AG What does FPI stand for? TIA, AG The article I posted denies that the apparent contradiction between relativity and non locality can be resolved simply by appealing to the non-signalling theorem, which Bruce seems to assert. I was the one asserting that with the MWI, even the Bell's violation does not force FTL, even without signalling possible. My point, shared by others in the thread, was that with the MWI restores both 3p determinacy, and 3p locality. The point of Clark and Bruce is that even with the MWI, Bell's inequality violation proves that nature is 3p non local, and that action at a distance exists. I can only go by his words. So I don't see that the article I posted is irrelevant to the discussion. AG It was Bruce who claims that Bell's inequality violation shows that FTL exists, even without possible signalling. Then why does he tell you to "get over it", it being FTL? AG Maybe he means that FTL exists in this world, so why resort to the MWI to deny it. But then why does he bring up the no-signalling theorem? AG Hope I didn't offend any true believers in the MWI, MWI is a theory. I have often explain, as a logic
Re: What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain
Am 29.08.2016 um 15:02 schrieb Bruno Marchal: ... Irrealism on the other hand states the the external world is a part of the virtual world. I guess that Bruno's theory is close to irrealism. Except it is not a theory, but a theorem (in the mechanist theory, which of course is not mine). To avoid irrealism, you need to do a strong ontological commitment, which contradicts mechanism + the usual weak use of Occam. The author does not seem to be aware of the first person indeterminacy , nor that mechanism and materialism are incompatible (unless introducing an infinite amount of magic). Few are aware of this, still, and I am not much astonished, given what I am reported very often. I have informed the author about your paper. Let us see what happens. Best wishes, Evgenii -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.