Re: Non-locality and MWI

[Bruce Kellett]

On 9/05/2016 3:17 pm, smitra wrote:

On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:


The idea that Alice splits further into different branches according
to Bob's results only after their respective light cones overlap is an
interpretive gloss on the theory (which, as already pointed out, you
do not apply consistently) -- it is not there in the mathematics.
Alice and Bob are in the same world even at spacelike separations.
This must be the case, or else my feet would be in a different world
from my head at every single instant of time. So Bob and Alice
separate in the same world. When they perform their measurements there
is a Bob in each world created by Alice's results, and an Alice in
every world created by Bob's results. The fact that neither Alice nor
Bob do not know the other's result does not mean that there are no
such results. Are there separate worlds in which these results are
combined? It doesn't really matter, because anything that can be seen
when information is exchanged is already set:  the exchange of
information is like opening the box -- the cat is already either alive
or dead, opening the box does not change that. So Alice and Bob
talking to each other does not change anything either. The results are
already present in the universal wave function -- talk of splitting
into worlds is irrelevant to the universal wave function and the
unitary dynamics. So the fact that A does not know B's results at some
time is irrelevant -- the results are already there. The question of
who knows what is not a relevant question for the universal wave
function. And the universal wave function takes account of the unity
of the singlet state and the reality of non-local effects.


And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are 
already there, but in the MWI this is false.


What? Are you claiming the the universal wave function -- which contains 
all possible branches corresponding to all possible outcomes -- does not 
contain the results? I think what you mean is that you do not know the 
result (which branch you are on) until you open the box. But that does 
not mean that you are not on one branch or the other. The death of the 
cat (if it be so) can be in your past light cone, so the splitting of 
worlds occasioned by that death has already split you. Your knowledge of 
this is strictly irrelevant. You can be in a particular world without 
being aware of it. In Bruno's famous person duplication experiments, you 
are in either Washington or Moscow before you are necessarily ever aware 
of which city it is. You make personal knowledge of outcomes far too 
prominent in your theory; things can actually happen without your being 
aware of them!


Bruce

In the MWI the cat is not either dead or alive before you open the 
box, the superposition has become entangled with the environment, but 
both branches are relevant until you get to know the result. If you 
find a dead cat then that does not mean that this outcome was 
predetermined.


--
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: Non-locality and MWI

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/8/2016 10:17 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote:

On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:


 The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment.
The information about the angles was not in the initial state. Sure,
the dynamics of the interaction between the  particles and the
polarizer is local, and the polarizer angle is also set locally, but
the entangled state that interacts with the polarizer is itself not
local -- it is spread out in space. It is because the original
entangled state is spread out that the polarizers at each end react in
tandem -- giving rise to the non-locality. Interactions in this are
all local, the non-locality arises from the fact that the singlet
state itself is not localized.


Yes, but that's again a trivial non-local effect as the entangled 
spins were created locally in the past. In the MWI this only gives 
rise to non-local effects that are trivial common cause effects, 
unlike in single World interpretations.


It is not a common cause effect. The singlet state is, but the
polarizer setting of A and B are independently and freely chosen after
the particles are widely separated. There is no common cause for this.



Alternatively, you can let Alice and Bob do additional measurements
of quantum systems and then set the polarizer settings according to
what they find. In that case the information about the settings was
not put in the initial state but it then arises out of the dynamics.
However, you then get a superposition of all possibilities,


 Superposition of all which possibilities? I imagine that what you are
saying is that if the setting is chosen according to the outcome of
some other quantum event, then all possible outcomes of that event are
realized in different branches of a superposition, or in different
worlds. This does not actually help you. Remember that each of the
worlds in which these different settings obtain also contains a copy
of the same particle that is part of the entangled pair (Alice
measured the other part). So in each branch of your new superposition,
the same state is measured in some direction. Whichever branch Bob
then finds himself in, he still has eventually to communicate with
Alice. And all the Bob's in this picture have their own particular
theta and |+> or |-> result. The multiplication of possibilities for
Bob has not removed the problem of how this theta is determined for
each copy. The essential non-locality remains.


The relative angle theta is not determined for each copy separately, 
each branch of Alice contains all the branches of Bob where Bob 
chooses some angle and vice versa. The relative angle is only going 
to be determined later when Alice and Bob communicate, it's only 
then that Alice and Bob get localized into branches where the 
relative angle is determined.


This additional superposition that you are invoking is actually
irrelevant. It is quite common in physics to deal with such
superpositions by considering just one typical member of the
superposition and performing the calculation for that particular case.
The general superposed case can be added back later if required, but
it does not add anything new.

The paradigm illustration of this is in particle physics. Because of
the uncertainty principle, a particle is effectively never in an
eigenstate of either position or momentum -- it is typically a wave
packet, in which the spreads over various position and momentum
eigenstates are related by a Fourier transform. In order to calculate
scattering probability, for example, one works in momentum space by
choice since conservation of energy and momentum give considerable
kinematic simplifications. But one does not have to do the calculation
for every momentum in the superposition constituting the original wave
packet: one chooses a typical momentum and works with that eigenstate
alone. If one wants to recreate the packet effect, a simple
integration over the momentum distribution is all that is required.

So introducing a multiplicity of copies of Bob, each with its own
measurement angle, is a red herring. One need consider only one
typical orientation, because in the final analysis, there is only one
polarizer setting for Bob that has to be compared with Alice's
polarizer setting. The important point remains the same -- the
settings for both Alice and Bob are chose and set classically by
decoherence long before they ever meet up again. So the relative angle
is not determined only when their future light cones overlap -- that
relative angle was set when they were at a spacelike separation.


it's only when you choose to look at the sector where the settings
were the same or opposite settings were chosen that you get the
reduction of the number of states. But that sector is defined by
what happens on both sides, so there is no strange non-local effect
here that is present in collapse theories.


 The reduction from four to two 

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[smitra]

On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote:

On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:


 The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment.
The information about the angles was not in the initial state. Sure,
the dynamics of the interaction between the  particles and the
polarizer is local, and the polarizer angle is also set locally, but
the entangled state that interacts with the polarizer is itself not
local -- it is spread out in space. It is because the original
entangled state is spread out that the polarizers at each end react 
in

tandem -- giving rise to the non-locality. Interactions in this are
all local, the non-locality arises from the fact that the singlet
state itself is not localized.


Yes, but that's again a trivial non-local effect as the entangled 
spins were created locally in the past. In the MWI this only gives 
rise to non-local effects that are trivial common cause effects, 
unlike in single World interpretations.


It is not a common cause effect. The singlet state is, but the
polarizer setting of A and B are independently and freely chosen after
the particles are widely separated. There is no common cause for this.



Alternatively, you can let Alice and Bob do additional measurements
of quantum systems and then set the polarizer settings according to
what they find. In that case the information about the settings was
not put in the initial state but it then arises out of the dynamics.
However, you then get a superposition of all possibilities,


 Superposition of all which possibilities? I imagine that what you 
are

saying is that if the setting is chosen according to the outcome of
some other quantum event, then all possible outcomes of that event 
are

realized in different branches of a superposition, or in different
worlds. This does not actually help you. Remember that each of the
worlds in which these different settings obtain also contains a copy
of the same particle that is part of the entangled pair (Alice
measured the other part). So in each branch of your new 
superposition,

the same state is measured in some direction. Whichever branch Bob
then finds himself in, he still has eventually to communicate with
Alice. And all the Bob's in this picture have their own particular
theta and |+> or |-> result. The multiplication of possibilities for
Bob has not removed the problem of how this theta is determined for
each copy. The essential non-locality remains.


The relative angle theta is not determined for each copy separately, 
each branch of Alice contains all the branches of Bob where Bob 
chooses some angle and vice versa. The relative angle is only going to 
be determined later when Alice and Bob communicate, it's only then 
that Alice and Bob get localized into branches where the relative 
angle is determined.


This additional superposition that you are invoking is actually
irrelevant. It is quite common in physics to deal with such
superpositions by considering just one typical member of the
superposition and performing the calculation for that particular case.
The general superposed case can be added back later if required, but
it does not add anything new.

The paradigm illustration of this is in particle physics. Because of
the uncertainty principle, a particle is effectively never in an
eigenstate of either position or momentum -- it is typically a wave
packet, in which the spreads over various position and momentum
eigenstates are related by a Fourier transform. In order to calculate
scattering probability, for example, one works in momentum space by
choice since conservation of energy and momentum give considerable
kinematic simplifications. But one does not have to do the calculation
for every momentum in the superposition constituting the original wave
packet: one chooses a typical momentum and works with that eigenstate
alone. If one wants to recreate the packet effect, a simple
integration over the momentum distribution is all that is required.

So introducing a multiplicity of copies of Bob, each with its own
measurement angle, is a red herring. One need consider only one
typical orientation, because in the final analysis, there is only one
polarizer setting for Bob that has to be compared with Alice's
polarizer setting. The important point remains the same -- the
settings for both Alice and Bob are chose and set classically by
decoherence long before they ever meet up again. So the relative angle
is not determined only when their future light cones overlap -- that
relative angle was set when they were at a spacelike separation.


it's only when you choose to look at the sector where the settings
were the same or opposite settings were chosen that you get the
reduction of the number of states. But that sector is defined by
what happens on both sides, so there is no strange non-local effect
here that is present in collapse theories.


 The reduction from four to two states has never been the problem 

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

[Bruce Kellett]

On 9/05/2016 1:39 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Thanks Scerir. Very interesting.


On 08 May 2016, at 09:58, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:


https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521

'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality'
Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson

there are several interesting points here
ch. 9 - Locality in the Everett picture
ch. 9.1 EPR and Bell correlations in the Everettian setting



Nice.

 I think that what we are trying to explain to Bruce is well summed up 
in their section 9.1.2 (the Everett description of the singlet state, 
case of non-align polarizer).


I have already discussed this in my reply to Saibal. The basic point I 
would make again is that the splitting of the universal wave function 
into separate "worlds" is an interpretive gloss that does not actually 
alter anything in the theory. Furthermore, 'who knows what about 
whatever' is also an irrelevance as far as the universal wave function 
is concerned. If you are going to work in the many worlds paradigm, then 
everything ultimately stems from the unitary evolution of the universal 
wave function -- all else is just interpretive gloss, of no fundamental 
significance.


This is the case for the discussion in section 9.1.2 of the paper by 
Brown and Timpson. Their equation (9) contains all the relevant results 
that set the universal wave function -- the additional third measurement 
(or measurement-like interaction) leading to equation (10) is, 
therefore, irrelevant. All that happens in eq. (10) is an exchange of 
information -- but it is an exchange of information that is already 
present in the universal wave function, no new information is created at 
this point. Just like opening the box on Schrödinger's cat, which is 
either alive or dead long before, looking changes nothing.  Eq. (10) is, 
similarly, just an interpretive gloss of no fundamental significance. 
The important point here is that everything is set in the universal wave 
function /before/ Alice and Bob meet. The relative angle of the 
respective polarizers is set in the wave function long before the light 
cones of Alice and Bob overlap, so that relative angle is determined 
non-locally.


The universal wave function is not a local object -- the unitary 
evolution does not have any implicit notion of locality. Locality is a 
human convention, and the universal wave function is under no compulsion 
to take any notice of human conventions or preferences.


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 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: Non-locality and MWI

[Bruce Kellett]

On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote:

On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:


 The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment.
The information about the angles was not in the initial state. Sure,
the dynamics of the interaction between the  particles and the
polarizer is local, and the polarizer angle is also set locally, but
the entangled state that interacts with the polarizer is itself not
local -- it is spread out in space. It is because the original
entangled state is spread out that the polarizers at each end react in
tandem -- giving rise to the non-locality. Interactions in this are
all local, the non-locality arises from the fact that the singlet
state itself is not localized.


Yes, but that's again a trivial non-local effect as the entangled 
spins were created locally in the past. In the MWI this only gives 
rise to non-local effects that are trivial common cause effects, 
unlike in single World interpretations.


It is not a common cause effect. The singlet state is, but the polarizer 
setting of A and B are independently and freely chosen after the 
particles are widely separated. There is no common cause for this.




Alternatively, you can let Alice and Bob do additional measurements
of quantum systems and then set the polarizer settings according to
what they find. In that case the information about the settings was
not put in the initial state but it then arises out of the dynamics.
However, you then get a superposition of all possibilities,


 Superposition of all which possibilities? I imagine that what you are
saying is that if the setting is chosen according to the outcome of
some other quantum event, then all possible outcomes of that event are
realized in different branches of a superposition, or in different
worlds. This does not actually help you. Remember that each of the
worlds in which these different settings obtain also contains a copy
of the same particle that is part of the entangled pair (Alice
measured the other part). So in each branch of your new superposition,
the same state is measured in some direction. Whichever branch Bob
then finds himself in, he still has eventually to communicate with
Alice. And all the Bob's in this picture have their own particular
theta and |+> or |-> result. The multiplication of possibilities for
Bob has not removed the problem of how this theta is determined for
each copy. The essential non-locality remains.


The relative angle theta is not determined for each copy separately, 
each branch of Alice contains all the branches of Bob where Bob 
chooses some angle and vice versa. The relative angle is only going to 
be determined later when Alice and Bob communicate, it's only then 
that Alice and Bob get localized into branches where the relative 
angle is determined.


This additional superposition that you are invoking is actually 
irrelevant. It is quite common in physics to deal with such 
superpositions by considering just one typical member of the 
superposition and performing the calculation for that particular case. 
The general superposed case can be added back later if required, but it 
does not add anything new.


The paradigm illustration of this is in particle physics. Because of the 
uncertainty principle, a particle is effectively never in an eigenstate 
of either position or momentum -- it is typically a wave packet, in 
which the spreads over various position and momentum eigenstates are 
related by a Fourier transform. In order to calculate  scattering 
probability, for example, one works in momentum space by choice since 
conservation of energy and momentum give considerable kinematic 
simplifications. But one does not have to do the calculation for every 
momentum in the superposition constituting the original wave packet: one 
chooses a typical momentum and works with that eigenstate alone. If one 
wants to recreate the packet effect, a simple integration over the 
momentum distribution is all that is required.


So introducing a multiplicity of copies of Bob, each with its own 
measurement angle, is a red herring. One need consider only one typical 
orientation, because in the final analysis, there is only one polarizer 
setting for Bob that has to be compared with Alice's polarizer setting. 
The important point remains the same -- the settings for both Alice and 
Bob are chose and set classically by decoherence long before they ever 
meet up again. So the relative angle is not determined only when their 
future light cones overlap -- that relative angle was set when they were 
at a spacelike separation.



it's only when you choose to look at the sector where the settings
were the same or opposite settings were chosen that you get the
reduction of the number of states. But that sector is defined by
what happens on both sides, so there is no strange non-local effect
here that is present in collapse theories.


 The reduction from four to two states has never been the problem --
it is the origin 

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Samiya Illias]

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Apr 2016, at 05:30, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> This email list has been pondering, discussing and debating machine
> theology, the mind-body problem, 1P, 3P, and so on. You understand the
> relationship between the software and the hardware. Who then can better
> appreciate the scriptures when they speak of the WORD preceding everything,
> that is, the CODE which generated the entire creation and everyone and
> everything in it?! Who then can better understand that it is the COMMAND
> which effects changes in the PROGRAM, and the COMMAND is generated by the
> PROGRAMMER (God)?! Who then knows that even what appears RANDOM is
> generated by CODE?! Who then can better relate to the concepts of NAFS (1P)
> and OBSERVERS & WITNESSES (3P)?! Who then can better realise that if a CODE
> was originally conceived and has been WRITTEN, then repeating the CODE to
> RECREATE it is far easier?!
>
>
>
> That is cool, Samya.
>
>
> And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with the
> PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!
>
>
>
> If the PERFECT CODE can be corrupted, it means that it is not the perfect
> code.
>
> I don't think you can corrupt the perfect code, as I don't believe there
> is bugs in elementary arithmetic (not confuse again with possible human or
> machine theories about it).
>
> If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted then the entire universal
> dovetailing cannot be corrupted. It emulates all programs with all possible
> bugs, but none on this will change the elementary facts on which it
> proceeds. Plausibly, most phenomenologies (NAFS) inherit a part of its
> stability, and correctness, and perhaps even an atom of its perfection, who
> nows?
>
> You can't corrupt the Big One. You can trust HIM/SHE/IT on this. I think.
>

My God (Allah) is the One who wrote/spoke all the codes of creation,
including the big one(s). I trust Allah does not allow anyone, including
the big one(s), to corrupt creation. In fact, they all humbly submit to the
Will of Allah and live their purpose in the grand scheme of creation. Those
created beings who misuse their free will to try to corrupt were never
taken nor will ever be taken as part of the executive of the grand creation
(Quran 18:51 ). Respite is given for
a certain amount of time. When that period expires, all will be judged, and
in perfect justice the corrupt will be contained for ever.

As I understand the scripture and its message, Allah bestowed some advanced
intelligence to humans to entrust us with some big responsibilities (Quran
33:72 ). However, we need to prove
that we are worthy of undertaking those responsibilities (Quran 33:73
), and therefore He created death
and life to test us (Quran 67:2 , 29:2
). Thus, He created this contained
environment, practical exam room, (Quran 76:2
) where we have been granted a
certain degree of freedom along with guidance, an open book exam (Quran 76:3
).

Adam was initially examined in the Garden, and in his pursuit of
Immortality and a Kingdom that Never Decays

(Quran 20:120 ), Adam's tampering
with his DNA resulted in the loss of the natural clothing of humans. On
Earth, humans are among the rare creatures whose skins are bare and not
covered with fur, feather, shell or some other form of covering to hide
their body. Scientists have discovered pseudogenes (mutated, inactive
genes) in humans, which indicate that perhaps sometime in the distant past,
human skin was covered in fur or feather.

Adam and his progeny (us) have been sent to this Earth to be examined.
People before us were examined, and so are we also here to take our exam
(Quran 29:3 ). Mighty civilisations
 have
preceded us, who were given knowledge of or from Everything, yet when they
arrogantly refused to submit to the guidance and will of God
,
they were warned of impending punishment, and eventually destroyed for
their corruptions
.


And Allah knows best!

Samiya




> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> 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 

Re: Non-locality and MWI

[smitra]

On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On 8/05/2016 3:11 am, smitra wrote:


On 07-05-2016 09:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:


There is no such additional superposition in the quantum
formalism,
so if you are going to postulate one such, then you are talking
about
some different theory, not quantum mechanics.


If you have a problem with the reduction of 4 outcomes to two
outcomes, then you need to trace back where the information implied
by this originated from. Your current argument is hiding this. In
the theory where there is no collapse that has non-local features
and where there are only local interactions, the information about
the angles was either put a priori in the initial state (you can
have modeled it in the effective Hamiltonian that describes how
Alice's and Bob's spin will interact with the polarizers), or it
arose out of the dynamics itself. In neither case does the result
point to some strange non-local effect.


 I don't understand where you got this from. I do not have a problem
with the reduction from 4 outcomes to 2 outcomes in the case of
parallel polarizers -- it is there in the formalism: two of the terms
vanish when theta=0º. You seem to be implying that there cannot be
any non-local effects in QM because it is, by definition, a local
theory. The apparent locality of the theory is why some people have so
much trouble understanding the non-local effects that can arise in QM.

 I quote the following from a recent post on another list by an
experienced physicist:
 "An entangled pair of states just share the same wave function, and
the uncertainty principle is ultimately what is behind the nonlocality
of the wave function. A wave function with a spread means there is no
localization of the wave. This is even for a classical wave, which
prior to the quantum physics was not seen as a problem. Yet when that
wave was found to describe the motion of a material particle then
suddenly all types of strange issues came forth. This extended in some
ways to the quantum theory of light for entangled states of
polarization and so forth.

"The spread of a wave, which for a spherical wave front can be
considerable, and the uncertainty principle are the primary reasons
for all of these nonlocal physics."

 What is being said here is related to what I said recently about
working in momentum space: in momentum space particles are completely
non-localized. Non-locality is now widely accepted as a fact of
quantum theory. It cannot be removed by definition!

 The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment.
The information about the angles was not in the initial state. Sure,
the dynamics of the interaction between the  particles and the
polarizer is local, and the polarizer angle is also set locally, but
the entangled state that interacts with the polarizer is itself not
local -- it is spread out in space. It is because the original
entangled state is spread out that the polarizers at each end react in
tandem -- giving rise to the non-locality. Interactions in this are
all local, the non-locality arises from the fact that the singlet
state itself is not localized.



Yes, but that's again a trivial non-local effect as the entangled spins 
were created locally in the past. In the MWI this only gives rise to 
non-local effects that are trivial common cause effects, unlike in 
single World interpretations.



 .


You have clearly not understood the basic weirdness of quantum
mechanics.


I have, but it's clear that you refuse the analyze this problem
properly according to the MWI. What you do is you take the l
formalism of how we compute things in practice as "the truth" when
it's not the truth according to the MWI.


 So what is the MWI "truth"? How is the standard quantum calculation
modified? Remember, that the quantum formalism is taken to be  the
most complete possible formulation of the state -- if you go beyond
this formulation, by calling on additional non-visible information,
for instance, you are no longer talking about quantum mechanics but
some other theory.


There is no modification, MWI demands that  all physical degrees of 
freedom are included in the Schrödinger equation, if you want to 
describe the physical situation in terms of macroscopic observers, you 
are necessarily going to have to resort to an effective treatment of the 
problem.In MWI language one introduces "branches" that describe the 
sectors where the observers find different outcomes. Here one makes 
hidden assumptions whose validity in theoretical arguments must always 
be checked.





The reduction of 4 outcomes to 2 outcomes is not a non-local effect
in the MWI, because the information contained in the absence of ++
and -- outcomes did not arise in a non-local way. If you have a real
collapse then there is problem. But in the MWI all possible outcomes
are realized, and if we are to assume that Alice and Bob's polarizer
settings were predetermined then you have hidden this information in
the 

Re: Bektashi Alevi

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Apr 2016, at 05:30, Samiya Illias wrote:

This email list has been pondering, discussing and debating machine  
theology, the mind-body problem, 1P, 3P, and so on. You understand  
the relationship between the software and the hardware. Who then can  
better appreciate the scriptures when they speak of the WORD  
preceding everything, that is, the CODE which generated the entire  
creation and everyone and everything in it?! Who then can better  
understand that it is the COMMAND which effects changes in the  
PROGRAM, and the COMMAND is generated by the PROGRAMMER (God)?! Who  
then knows that even what appears RANDOM is generated by CODE?! Who  
then can better relate to the concepts of NAFS (1P) and OBSERVERS &  
WITNESSES (3P)?! Who then can better realise that if a CODE was  
originally conceived and has been WRITTEN, then repeating the CODE  
to RECREATE it is far easier?!



That is cool, Samya.


And, especially, who then can better understand that tampering with  
the PERFECT CODE only corrupts it?!



If the PERFECT CODE can be corrupted, it means that it is not the  
perfect code.


I don't think you can corrupt the perfect code, as I don't believe  
there is bugs in elementary arithmetic (not confuse again with  
possible human or machine theories about it).


If you agree that "2+2=4" cannot be corrupted then the entire  
universal dovetailing cannot be corrupted. It emulates all programs  
with all possible bugs, but none on this will change the elementary  
facts on which it proceeds. Plausibly, most phenomenologies (NAFS)  
inherit a part of its stability, and correctness, and perhaps even an  
atom of its perfection, who nows?


You can't corrupt the Big One. You can trust HIM/SHE/IT on this. I  
think.


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

[Bruno Marchal]

Thanks Scerir. Very interesting.


On 08 May 2016, at 09:58, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:



https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521

'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality'
Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson

there are several interesting points here
ch. 9 - Locality in the Everett picture
ch. 9.1 EPR and Bell correlations in the Everettian setting



Nice.

 I think that what we are trying to explain to Bruce is well summed  
up in their section 9.1.2 (the Everett description of the singlet  
state, case of non-align polarizer).


I think Saunders and Wallace also got that point, and that is  
equivalent with Tipler (plus some reasonable assumptions)


The only real problem for Everett is that he uses a form of "comp"  
which now asks for a phenomenological account of the waves itself, and  
the symmetries and the apparent breaking of the symmetries.


The nice surprise is that not only that approach seems to work,  
(thanks to the discovery of the universal machine (computer science)  
and of the Gödel-Löbian machine), but that approach makes possible to  
split the logics and theories obtained (for those phenomenologies,  
implied by incompleteness) and to distinguish truth and the  
justifiable, truth and the observable, truth and the knowable, truth  
and the sensible, etc. It is handy to get the relation right between  
the quanta and the qualia.


We cannot derive the existence of a universal machine/system/language  
without assuming such a universal system. But once we believe in one  
of them, like when we believe in elementary arithmetic or in the  
Fortran programming language, we get all the others and the many  
internal phenomenologies, which are not dependent of the initial  
choice we make to tlak about them.


Once you assume computationalism (under the weak form of Church thesis  
+ consciousness invariance for a relatively- digital substitution)  
Peano Arithmetic (+ computationalism thus) can prove the existence of  
a web of dreams and of a limiting multiverse (locally stable and  
sharable first person plural points of view.



Bruno



etc. etc.

--
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.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.

Non-locality and MWI (literature)

['scerir' via Everything List]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521

'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality'
Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson

there are several interesting points here
ch. 9 - Locality in the Everett picture
ch. 9.1 EPR and Bell correlations in the Everettian setting
etc. etc.

-- 
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.