date:20220409

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 2:13 PM smitra  wrote:

>
> So, what I'm saying is correct, the fact that physics is local is not
> under dispute in physics. There exists a local Hamiltonian that
> generates the time evolution operator. You'll win a Noble prize if you
> can demonstrate that this is not the case. So, the burden of proof is on
> you to show where what is supposed to be established physics, is wrong.
>

The simplest way to counter your assertions is to provide a simple
counterexample. Consider the standard Alice/Bob setup, with up/down results
coded as 1/0. According to MWI, on each trial, Alice splits, one copy
recoding |1> and the other copy recording |0>. After N trials, there are
2^N copies of Alice, with records consisting of all possible binary
sequences of length N. If Bob is spacelike separated and independent, he
also splits into 2^N copie, consisting of all possible binary sequences of
length N.

When Alice and Bob meet (or exchange trial results), each copy of each
splits into 2^N copies, one for each copy of the other party. So for Alice,
each copy of Aice with some binary sequence of results, splits into 2^N
copies, one for each of Bob's sequences. Now say, for example, that Alice
and Bob both happen to have the same polarizer setting for the 10th trial,
so that for trial 10, their polarizers are parallel. Since there are copies
of Alice for all possible results for trial 10, there is an Alice with
result |1> for this trial, and a different Alice with result |0>. Now each
Alice splits according to all possible copies of Bob. So the Alice with
result |1> meets a Bob with result |0> for the same trial. That is OK
according to quantum mechanics. But by the rules of MWI, there is also a
copy of Alice with result |1> who meets a Bob who recorded |1> for the 10th
trial. This contradicts QM, in fact it violates angular momentum
conservation, so no such Alice/Bob coupling is possible. But, by following
the rules of local MWI, such a pairing is inevitable. What is more, there
will be many more pairings that conflict with the predictions of QM than
there will be pairings that comply.

The challenge for the local account of the Bell correlations in MWI is:
What happens to all these incorrect couplings? There is clearly one correct
matching for each Alice copy. She is bound to meet this since she meets all
possible Bob sequences. But there are 2^N of these, and only one is
strictly correct (though, since correlations are probabilistic, there will
probably be some additional number of near misses). In general, this leaves
2^N-1 bad couplings for each copy of Alice --  (2^N)*(2^N -1) bad pairings
that have to be got rid of somehow. MWI offers no mechanism for removing
these bad pairings.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRs8qmAHikQidcJejth3KU-8iKMEQiqvhaekkA2yjV4eA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 2:13 PM smitra  wrote:

> On 10-04-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 10:14 AM smitra  wrote:
> >
> >> On 09-04-2022 06:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, to end this interminable argument, just give this fabulous local
> >>> many worlds account of the Bell correlations. It is all very well to
> >>> claim that MWI is manifestly local, then step sideways and avoid
> >>> giving the required local account of the correlations. In a sense,
> >>> Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant if a local account of the
> >>> correlations can be provided. So provide it, and the argument is over.
> >>
> >> We start at t = 0 with everything ready to start creating the entangled
> >> pairs of spins. Alice and Bob will make their way tki distant locations
> >> and perform measurements on their spins, then return to meet each other
> >> and compute the correlations using the data in their logbooks. The final
> >> results will be published at time T. The local account that describes
> >> the entire process is formally given by:
> >>
> >> |final state> = exp[-i H t/hbar]|initial state>
> >>
> >> where H is the local Standard Model Hamiltonian.
> >
> > Ha, Ha. Ha fucking Ha! What a comedian!
> >
> > Teacher says: "Show your working." 0/10
> >
>
> If the teacher gives zero points for the exercise then that can implies
> that the problem the student was supposed to solve was solvable.
>

You really are naive!

So, what I'm saying is correct, the fact that physics is local is not
> under dispute in physics.


Of course it is under dispute. Many people now agree that entanglement is
essentially non-local. And if you consider holography, then that is the
ultimate non-local physics.


There exists a local Hamiltonian that
> generates the time evolution operator. You'll win a Noble prize if you
> can demonstrate that this is not the case. So, the burden of proof is on
> you to show where what is supposed to be established physics, is wrong.
>

If you consider only local interactions, you have a local Hamiltonian. But
the state we are considering here is not local, so your precious local
dynamics are not going to be sufficient. Prove that there is a local state
that is non-separable, then I might listen. Entangled states are
non-separable, hence non-local.

You still haven't given the working for your fabulous demonstration
above...

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTOVcPR%2B8jgyTLy4BdJJeHw3eWHiLMT%2B_X-0hO8w9kEbg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 10:25 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 09-04-2022 07:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:28 AM smitra  wrote:
> >
> >> On 08-04-2022 07:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Permanent records do follow from entanglement and decoherence. There
> >>> is no reason to suppose that algorithms processing information are
> >>> going to produce permanent records. Unless they do, they are useless
> >>> as a model of observation. In the words of David Albert (paraphrased):
> >>> "The task of fundamental physics is to explain the manifest image
> >> ."
> >>>
> >>
> >> Decoherence is never complete it can in principle be reversed.
> >
> > No. Measurements are in principle irreversible. Whenever you have a
> > result entangled with the environment (by decoherence) you inevitably
> > have low energy IR photons that escape into space. Since these vanish
> > at the speed of light, they cannot be reversed. The records of results
> > are permanent, not just FAPP, but in principle, according to the laws
> > of physics.
>
> These IR photons have nothing whatsoever to do with observation.

But the have everything to do with the fact that the formation of records
is irreversible.

And
> it's FAPP, not in principle, anyway.

In principle means that the laws of physics forbid any violation.

If I observe something then that's
> due to my brain processing information, so, it's the processing of
> information by a particular algorithm that's the key thing here, not
> that decoherence happens and that IR photons would make this
> irreversible.
>

Your brain can only process external records of the result. The making of
these records is irreversible because the laws of physics do not allow you
to reverse them.

That this is FAPP and not in principle, follows from the fact that IR
> photons can be reflected back.

You are ignoring some important laws of physics here. Even if one could put
an appropriate reflecting mirror in the path of the photons so that they
are reflected back, that mirror would impart a change of momentum, so would
be slightly heated, and would emit its own IR photons in response. No
escaping those pesky IR photons.

> So, one can consider a closed system
> within which an observer exists. If we impose reflecting boundary
> conditions at some distance, then the number of modes of the
> electromagnetic field below a certain energy E is finite.

There is no such reflecting boundary. And no such boundary is relevant to
the measurement. It would still not make the process reversible. The
emission of the IR photons is a probabilistic process, so merely reflecting
them back does not ensure that they will be exactly reabsorbed -- that is a
process of zero probability measure.

And the amount
> of information carried by photons with wavelength much larger than the
> size of the experimental system is small, as for those photons that are
> emitted, there are only a small number of distinct photon states.
>

Not relevant, since there is no enclosing reflecting boundary.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTqkFJscUS0wfzKChvRANswg9x4RqGR0DPTU4ZwAFL1Ew%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On 10-04-2022 05:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 10:14 AM smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:

So, to end this interminable argument, just give this fabulous

local

many worlds account of the Bell correlations. It is all very well

claim that MWI is manifestly local, then step sideways and avoid
giving the required local account of the correlations. In a sense,
Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant if a local account of the
correlations can be provided. So provide it, and the argument is

over.

We start at t = 0 with everything ready to start creating the
entangled
pairs of spins. Alice and Bob will make their way tki distant
locations
and perform measurements on their spins, then return to meet each
other
and compute the correlations using the data in their logbooks. The
final
results will be published at time T. The local account that
describes
the entire process is formally given by:

|final state> = exp[-i H t/hbar]|initial state>

where H is the local Standard Model Hamiltonian.

Ha, Ha. Ha fucking Ha! What a comedian!

Teacher says: "Show your working." 0/10

If the teacher gives zero points for the exercise then that can implies
that the problem the student was supposed to solve was solvable.

So, what I'm saying is correct, the fact that physics is local is not
under dispute in physics. There exists a local Hamiltonian that
generates the time evolution operator. You'll win a Noble prize if you
can demonstrate that this is not the case. So, the burden of proof is on
you to show where what is supposed to be established physics, is wrong.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRHkNQY-1RRWSvarYJOsH9_9u89eO9eCjNuNb_hRd-83Q%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRHkNQY-1RRWSvarYJOsH9_9u89eO9eCjNuNb_hRd-83Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0ce299914c203b5825096bef4f2d764f%40zonnet.nl.

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

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 10:15 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 09-04-2022 06:56, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:02 AM smitra  wrote:
> >
> >> This assumption is not valid in QM. In deterministic theories the
> >> assumption is valid if the theory is local. But by conforming the QM
> >> result one does not prove non-locality. One only proves that a
> >> deterministic theory underlying QM must be nonlocal.
> >
> > I understood that MWI was deterministic. Then, by your reasoning, it
> > must be non-local.
> >
>
> Determinism is invoked in the derivation of Bell inequalities in the
> sense of de experimental outcomes being predetermined. That's not the
> case in the MWI because there is not a single outcome.
>

Bell does not assume or invoke determinism in the proof of his theorem.
Determinism is possibly a property of a hidden variable theory, but Bell
does not assume a hidden variable theory.

You will have to start providing textual evidence from the writing of Jon
Bell himself for some of the more outrageous claims that you are making.

Besides, MWI is the epitome of a deterministic 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 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSnyM2DALd7_Okrn6vtGs2d%3D7OQRSLyjCoGVxO%3DaL7o%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 10:14 AM smitra  wrote:

> On 09-04-2022 06:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> > So, to end this interminable argument, just give this fabulous local
> > many worlds account of the Bell correlations. It is all very well to
> > claim that MWI is manifestly local, then step sideways and avoid
> > giving the required local account of the correlations. In a sense,
> > Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant if a local account of the
> > correlations can be provided. So provide it, and the argument is over.
>
>
> We start at t = 0 with everything ready to start creating the entangled
> pairs of spins. Alice and Bob will make their way tki distant locations
> and perform measurements on their spins, then return to meet each other
> and compute the correlations using the data in their logbooks. The final
> results will be published at time T. The local account that describes
> the entire process is formally given by:
>
> |final state> = exp[-i H t/hbar]|initial state>
>
> where H is the local Standard Model Hamiltonian.
>


Ha, Ha. Ha fucking Ha! What a comedian!

Teacher says: "Show your working." 0/10

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRHkNQY-1RRWSvarYJOsH9_9u89eO9eCjNuNb_hRd-83Q%40mail.gmail.com.

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

On 10-04-2022 03:43, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/9/2022 6:21 PM, smitra wrote:

On 10-04-2022 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/9/2022 5:41 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 07:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 9:27 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 8:24 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 04:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM smitra
wrote:

On 09-04-2022 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The trouble here is that his argument about Bell's theorem
uses

his

own peculiar derivation. Derivations invoking counterfactual

reasoning
abound, but Bell did not prove his theorem in this way. If
the

theorem

can be proved without using counterfactual reasoning, then
counterfactual reasoning is not essential to the proof.

Tim Maudlin has an interesting take on this; see
arxiv:1408.1826.
Maudlin points out that Bell did not assume either
Determinism or
counterfactual definiteness in his proof. He derived
determinism

by
pointing out that if the theory is EPR local, then the
reactions

of
the measuring devices must be predetermined by some element
of

reality
in the system. This is a derivation of determinism for a
local

theory,

which simultaneously derives the condition sometimes called
'counterfactual definiteness'. But Bell does not assume an
EPR

local

theory -- he shows that such a theory contradicts quantum

mechanics..
Counterfactual reasoning, or counterfactual definiteness,
have no

place in his argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that
the
underlying physical properties PQ, PR, PS, PT exist
independently of

being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of
realism);
and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence
Bob's

result
or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

This allows for the counterfactual reasoning Bell uses in the
derivation.

Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

In this case it is, you can verify the algebra just above the
quote and see that you have to use counterfactual reasoning
which is then made possible if you assume realism and locality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

"The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett
interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of
the
unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can
generate

correlations that violate a Bell inequality because it doesn't
satisfy
the implicit assumption that Bell made that measurements have
a

single
outcome. In fact, Bell's theorem can be proven in the
Many-Worlds

framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single
outcome.
Therefore a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted
as a

demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes."

What a remarkably silly argument. The writer here is claiming
that
since Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many worlds, many worlds
can
give a local account of the correlations. It is amazing that so
many
people claim this, but no one has ever given this remarkable
local
account of the Bell correlations; in many worlds, or in any
other

theory.

The correct Hamiltonian must depend on the polarizer setting at
Alice

and at Bob, so how can it be local?

The Standard Model of particle physics is manifestly local. The
polarizer consists of atoms, ultimately everything is always
described by local dynamics. You may choose to replace the true
Hamiltonian by an effective Hamiltonian and that may sometimes
describe part of the system as if it were due to nonlocal
dynamics. That's then a consequence of part of the local dynamics
no longer generated by the true Hamiltonian but rather the results
of that being effectively put into the dynamics.

The local dynamics at Alice are dependent of the A polarizer
setting
which set by a photon from NGC2516 and the local dynamics at Bob
are

dependent on a photon from M81. So are you saying I have to use a
Hamiltonian that includes those sources?

Whatever is used in the experiment must be included. The finals
state is the time evolution operator applied to the initial state,
so you need to specify that initial state.

Then that's in direct contradiction to your assertion that the
Hamiltonian is local...unless you invoke superdeterminism to link
NGC125 and M81 to a common cause.

The photons from those galaxies are presumably not in some entangled
state. what matters is that there exists a local Hamiltonian H and
that the time evolution operator is U(t) = Exp[-i H t/hbar] and that
the state of a system evolves according to |psi(t)> = U(t)|psi(0)>.

But there

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

On 4/9/2022 6:21 PM, smitra wrote:

On 10-04-2022 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/9/2022 5:41 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 07:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 9:27 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 8:24 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 04:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The trouble here is that his argument about Bell's theorem uses

his

own peculiar derivation. Derivations invoking counterfactual

reasoning

abound, but Bell did not prove his theorem in this way. If the

theorem

can be proved without using counterfactual reasoning, then
counterfactual reasoning is not essential to the proof.

Tim Maudlin has an interesting take on this; see
arxiv:1408.1826.
Maudlin points out that Bell did not assume either
Determinism or

counterfactual definiteness in his proof. He derived determinism

pointing out that if the theory is EPR local, then the reactions

the measuring devices must be predetermined by some element of

reality

in the system. This is a derivation of determinism for a local

theory,

which simultaneously derives the condition sometimes called
'counterfactual definiteness'. But Bell does not assume an EPR

local

theory -- he shows that such a theory contradicts quantum

mechanics..
Counterfactual reasoning, or counterfactual definiteness,
have no

place in his argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that
the
underlying physical properties PQ, PR, PS, PT exist
independently of

being observed or measured (sometimes called the assumption of
realism);
and second, that Alice's choice of action cannot influence Bob's
result
or vice versa (often called the assumption of locality)"

This allows for the counterfactual reasoning Bell uses in the
derivation.

Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

In this case it is, you can verify the algebra just above the
quote and see that you have to use counterfactual reasoning
which is then made possible if you assume realism and locality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

"The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett
interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of the
unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can
generate

correlations that violate a Bell inequality because it doesn't
satisfy
the implicit assumption that Bell made that measurements have a
single
outcome. In fact, Bell's theorem can be proven in the Many-Worlds
framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single
outcome.
Therefore a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted
as a

demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes."

people claim this, but no one has ever given this remarkable local
account of the Bell correlations; in many worlds, or in any other
theory.

The correct Hamiltonian must depend on the polarizer setting at
Alice

and at Bob, so how can it be local?

The local dynamics at Alice are dependent of the A polarizer setting
which set by a photon from NGC2516 and the local dynamics at Bob are
dependent on a photon from M81. So are you saying I have to use a
Hamiltonian that includes those sources?

Whatever is used in the experiment must be included. The finals
state is the time evolution operator applied to the initial state,
so you need to specify that initial state.

Then that's in direct contradiction to your assertion that the
Hamiltonian is local...unless you invoke superdeterminism to link
NGC125 and M81 to a common cause.

But there doesn't exist such a H. H depends on the polarizer

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

On 10-04-2022 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/9/2022 5:41 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 07:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 9:27 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 8:24 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 04:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The trouble here is that his argument about Bell's theorem uses

his

own peculiar derivation. Derivations invoking counterfactual

reasoning

abound, but Bell did not prove his theorem in this way. If the

theorem

can be proved without using counterfactual reasoning, then
counterfactual reasoning is not essential to the proof.

Tim Maudlin has an interesting take on this; see
arxiv:1408.1826.
Maudlin points out that Bell did not assume either Determinism
or
counterfactual definiteness in his proof. He derived
determinism

by
pointing out that if the theory is EPR local, then the
reactions

the measuring devices must be predetermined by some element of

reality

in the system. This is a derivation of determinism for a local

theory,

which simultaneously derives the condition sometimes called
'counterfactual definiteness'. But Bell does not assume an EPR

local

theory -- he shows that such a theory contradicts quantum

mechanics..
Counterfactual reasoning, or counterfactual definiteness, have
no

place in his argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that
the
underlying physical properties PQ, PR, PS, PT exist
independently of

This allows for the counterfactual reasoning Bell uses in the
derivation.

Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

In this case it is, you can verify the algebra just above the
quote and see that you have to use counterfactual reasoning which
is then made possible if you assume realism and locality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

"The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett
interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of
the
unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can
generate

framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single
outcome.
Therefore a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as
a

demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes."

account of the Bell correlations; in many worlds, or in any other
theory.

The correct Hamiltonian must depend on the polarizer setting at
Alice

and at Bob, so how can it be local?

The Standard Model of particle physics is manifestly local. The
polarizer consists of atoms, ultimately everything is always
described by local dynamics. You may choose to replace the true
Hamiltonian by an effective Hamiltonian and that may sometimes
describe part of the system as if it were due to nonlocal dynamics.
That's then a consequence of part of the local dynamics no longer
generated by the true Hamiltonian but rather the results of that
being effectively put into the dynamics.

Whatever is used in the experiment must be included. The finals state
is the time evolution operator applied to the initial state, so you
need to specify that initial state.

Then that's in direct contradiction to your assertion that the
Hamiltonian is local...unless you invoke superdeterminism to link
NGC125 and M81 to a common cause.

The photons from those galaxies are presumably not in some entangled
state. what matters is that there exists a local Hamiltonian H and that
the time evolution operator is U(t) = Exp[-i H t/hbar] and that the
state of a system evolves according to |psi(t)> = U(t)|psi(0)>.

You can then start with |psi(0)> containing no entangled particles at
all, and |psi(t)> describing the

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

On 10-04-2022 02:46, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/9/2022 5:25 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 07:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:28 AM smitra wrote:

On 08-04-2022 07:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Permanent records do follow from entanglement and decoherence.

There

is no reason to suppose that algorithms processing information are
going to produce permanent records. Unless they do, they are

useless

as a model of observation. In the words of David Albert

(paraphrased):

"The task of fundamental physics is to explain the manifest image

Decoherence is never complete it can in principle be reversed.

No. Measurements are in principle irreversible. Whenever you have a
result entangled with the environment (by decoherence) you inevitably
have low energy IR photons that escape into space. Since these vanish
at the speed of light, they cannot be reversed. The records of
results

are permanent, not just FAPP, but in principle, according to the laws
of physics.

These IR photons have nothing whatsoever to do with observation. And
it's FAPP, not in principle, anyway. If I observe something then
that's due to my brain processing information, so, it's the processing
of information by a particular algorithm that's the key thing here,
not that decoherence happens and that IR photons would make this
irreversible.

So decoherence can be reversed, but your brain can't because it runs
an irreversible algorithm? On what hardware doesn't it run this
irreversible algorithm?

Everything is in principle reversible. What matters is that our ability
to experience something is not conditional on whether or not the state
of the universe will get reversed to the initial state. It only depends
on what happens in my brain here and now not whether the universe will
collapse 100 billion years later in a unitary way so as to exactly
revert to the initial state.

Saibal

Brent

That this is FAPP and not in principle, follows from the fact that IR
photons can be reflected back. So, one can consider a closed system
within which an observer exists. If we impose reflecting boundary
conditions at some distance, then the number of modes of the
electromagnetic field below a certain energy E is finite. And the
amount of information carried by photons with wavelength much larger
than the size of the experimental system is small, as for those
photons that are emitted, there are only a small number of distinct
photon states.

It cannot
reasonably be the case that I can only observe something right now
because a record of the observation is going to exist for eternity.
If
the universe were to reverse its time evolution in 10^15000 years in
a
unitary way, causing all records to be exactly erased, then we could
not
make any observations. What's the physical basis for making this
assumption?

What's the physical basis for assuming the universe can or could
reverse at some point in the future?

That's not a relevant issue here. It's simply that you are linking
observations to physical processes that have nothing to do with what's
relevant for observations, which would link it to things like the far
future of the universe.

You may argue that a FAPP permanent record is good enough for
observation, but you cannot define a physical plausible rigorous
boundary of your FAPP criterion.

I can and have. The irreversibility occasioned by the escape of IR
photons is a rigorous boundary.

The escape of IR photons has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability
of the brain to process information.

One can always subtract 1 second from
your time limit the universe must keep on expanding before starting
to
evolve backward. One then eventually ends up with the criterion that

there must be enough time for the brain processes that cause the
conscious experience of the observation to be completed.

Irrelevant speculation.

The irrelevant thing here (IR photons) was introduced by you.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMwh-CjeOPfzaDgNFwEjYtXsj83%3DB70%2BeadbaXdxsAtQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMwh-CjeOPfzaDgNFwEjYtXsj83%3DB70%2BeadbaXdxsAtQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8d59da67678ff22f2494a724ce2d9067%40zonnet.nl.

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

On 10-04-2022 02:43, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/9/2022 5:15 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:56, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:02 AM smitra wrote:

This assumption is not valid in QM. In deterministic theories the
assumption is valid if the theory is local. But by conforming the QM

result one does not prove non-locality. One only proves that a
deterministic theory underlying QM must be nonlocal.

I understood that MWI was deterministic. Then, by your reasoning, it
must be non-local.

Determinism is invoked in the derivation of Bell inequalities in the
sense of de experimental outcomes being predetermined.

No, the outcomes are random sequences of 0s and 1s. How they
"predetermined" and predeterimined before what?

In local deterministic models, they are predetermined by the hidden
variables and the polarizer settings.

Saibal

Brent

That's not the case in the MWI because there is not a single outcome.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEwoQC1AMu3hCST%3DKKKy06chRc_tX0F%2Bp%2BOp%3DUxJ0hqw%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEwoQC1AMu3hCST%3DKKKy06chRc_tX0F%2Bp%2BOp%3DUxJ0hqw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81d2dc7cab7baf8378104e59ce2a291b%40zonnet.nl.

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

On 4/9/2022 5:41 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 07:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 9:27 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 8:24 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 04:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The trouble here is that his argument about Bell's theorem uses

his

own peculiar derivation. Derivations invoking counterfactual

reasoning

abound, but Bell did not prove his theorem in this way. If the

theorem

can be proved without using counterfactual reasoning, then
counterfactual reasoning is not essential to the proof.

Tim Maudlin has an interesting take on this; see arxiv:1408.1826.
Maudlin points out that Bell did not assume either Determinism or
counterfactual definiteness in his proof. He derived determinism

pointing out that if the theory is EPR local, then the reactions

the measuring devices must be predetermined by some element of

reality

in the system. This is a derivation of determinism for a local

theory,

which simultaneously derives the condition sometimes called
'counterfactual definiteness'. But Bell does not assume an EPR

local

theory -- he shows that such a theory contradicts quantum

mechanics..

Counterfactual reasoning, or counterfactual definiteness, have no
place in his argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
underlying physical properties PQ, PR, PS, PT exist
independently of

This allows for the counterfactual reasoning Bell uses in the
derivation.

Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

In this case it is, you can verify the algebra just above the
quote and see that you have to use counterfactual reasoning which
is then made possible if you assume realism and locality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

"The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett
interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of the
unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can generate
correlations that violate a Bell inequality because it doesn't
satisfy
the implicit assumption that Bell made that measurements have a
single
outcome. In fact, Bell's theorem can be proven in the Many-Worlds
framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single
outcome.
Therefore a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a
demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes."

What a remarkably silly argument. The writer here is claiming that
since Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many worlds, many worlds can
give a local account of the correlations. It is amazing that so many
people claim this, but no one has ever given this remarkable local
account of the Bell correlations; in many worlds, or in any other
theory.

The correct Hamiltonian must depend on the polarizer setting at Alice
and at Bob, so how can it be local?

The Standard Model of particle physics is manifestly local. The
polarizer consists of atoms, ultimately everything is always
described by local dynamics. You may choose to replace the true
Hamiltonian by an effective Hamiltonian and that may sometimes
describe part of the system as if it were due to nonlocal dynamics.
That's then a consequence of part of the local dynamics no longer
generated by the true Hamiltonian but rather the results of that
being effectively put into the dynamics.

Whatever is used in the experiment must be included. The finals state
is the time evolution operator applied to the initial state, so you
need to specify that initial state.

Then that's in direct contradiction to your assertion that the
Hamiltonian is local...unless you invoke superdeterminism to link NGC125
and M81 to a common cause.

Brent

Saibal

Brent

Another example of this is the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03440

So, the apparent non-locality here is an artifact of describing the
electromagnetic fields of the solenoid classically.

Saibal

Brent

Then given that MWI is local and deterministic and yet it violates
Bell's inequalities (because it reproduces QM predictions
correctly), it follows that the MWI must violate an

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

On 4/9/2022 5:25 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 07:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:28 AM smitra wrote:

On 08-04-2022 07:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Permanent records do follow from entanglement and decoherence.

There

is no reason to suppose that algorithms processing information are
going to produce permanent records. Unless they do, they are

useless

as a model of observation. In the words of David Albert

(paraphrased):

"The task of fundamental physics is to explain the manifest image

Decoherence is never complete it can in principle be reversed.

So decoherence can be reversed, but your brain can't because it runs an
irreversible algorithm? On what hardware doesn't it run this
irreversible algorithm?

Brent

What's the physical basis for assuming the universe can or could
reverse at some point in the future?

You may argue that a FAPP permanent record is good enough for
observation, but you cannot define a physical plausible rigorous
boundary of your FAPP criterion.

I can and have. The irreversibility occasioned by the escape of IR
photons is a rigorous boundary.

The escape of IR photons has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability
of the brain to process information.

One can always subtract 1 second from
your time limit the universe must keep on expanding before starting
to
evolve backward. One then eventually ends up with the criterion that

there must be enough time for the brain processes that cause the
conscious experience of the observation to be completed.

Irrelevant speculation.

The irrelevant thing here (IR photons) was introduced by you.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMwh-CjeOPfzaDgNFwEjYtXsj83%3DB70%2BeadbaXdxsAtQ%40mail.gmail.com

[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMwh-CjeOPfzaDgNFwEjYtXsj83%3DB70%2BeadbaXdxsAtQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5bb596d4-81a2-b3c1-26c3-0b3b5a2adada%40gmail.com.

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

On 4/9/2022 5:15 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:56, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:02 AM smitra wrote:

This assumption is not valid in QM. In deterministic theories the
assumption is valid if the theory is local. But by conforming the QM

result one does not prove non-locality. One only proves that a
deterministic theory underlying QM must be nonlocal.

I understood that MWI was deterministic. Then, by your reasoning, it
must be non-local.

Determinism is invoked in the derivation of Bell inequalities in the
sense of de experimental outcomes being predetermined.

No, the outcomes are random sequences of 0s and 1s. How they
"predetermined" and predeterimined before what?

Brent

That's not the case in the MWI because there is not a single outcome.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEwoQC1AMu3hCST%3DKKKy06chRc_tX0F%2Bp%2BOp%3DUxJ0hqw%40mail.gmail.com

[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEwoQC1AMu3hCST%3DKKKy06chRc_tX0F%2Bp%2BOp%3DUxJ0hqw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d410ebf5-d21a-3f7c-9f24-c1ff66cabc8e%40gmail.com.

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

On 09-04-2022 07:39, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 9:27 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 06:04, Brent Meeker wrote:

On 4/8/2022 8:24 PM, smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 04:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 01:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:

The trouble here is that his argument about Bell's theorem uses

his

own peculiar derivation. Derivations invoking counterfactual

reasoning

abound, but Bell did not prove his theorem in this way. If the

theorem

can be proved without using counterfactual reasoning, then
counterfactual reasoning is not essential to the proof.

Tim Maudlin has an interesting take on this; see arxiv:1408.1826.
Maudlin points out that Bell did not assume either Determinism or
counterfactual definiteness in his proof. He derived determinism

pointing out that if the theory is EPR local, then the reactions

the measuring devices must be predetermined by some element of

reality

in the system. This is a derivation of determinism for a local

theory,

which simultaneously derives the condition sometimes called
'counterfactual definiteness'. But Bell does not assume an EPR

local

theory -- he shows that such a theory contradicts quantum

mechanics..

Counterfactual reasoning, or counterfactual definiteness, have no
place in his argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

"Its derivation here depends upon two assumptions: first, that the
underlying physical properties PQ, PR, PS, PT exist independently
of

This allows for the counterfactual reasoning Bell uses in the
derivation.

Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

In this case it is, you can verify the algebra just above the quote
and see that you have to use counterfactual reasoning which is then
made possible if you assume realism and locality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

"The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett
interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of the
unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can
generate

people claim this, but no one has ever given this remarkable local
account of the Bell correlations; in many worlds, or in any other
theory.

The correct Hamiltonian must depend on the polarizer setting at Alice
and at Bob, so how can it be local?

The Standard Model of particle physics is manifestly local. The
polarizer consists of atoms, ultimately everything is always described
by local dynamics. You may choose to replace the true Hamiltonian by
an effective Hamiltonian and that may sometimes describe part of the
system as if it were due to nonlocal dynamics. That's then a
consequence of part of the local dynamics no longer generated by the
true Hamiltonian but rather the results of that being effectively put
into the dynamics.

Whatever is used in the experiment must be included. The finals state is
the time evolution operator applied to the initial state, so you need to
specify that initial state.

Saibal

Brent

Another example of this is the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03440

So, the apparent non-locality here is an artifact of describing the
electromagnetic fields of the solenoid classically.

Saibal

Brent

Then given that MWI is local and deterministic and yet it violates
Bell's inequalities (because it reproduces QM predictions
correctly), it follows that the MWI must violate an assumption Bell
made. And that is then that measurements have single outcomes. This
is violated in the MWI. You can also say that this makes MWI violate
realism as John Clark has pointed out often on this list.

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

On 09-04-2022 07:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:35 AM smitra wrote:

On 08-04-2022 07:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:42 PM smitra 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.

The Standard Model is 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.

It's known that the laws of physics are local, the local account is just
the time evolution starting from the start using the fundamental
Hamiltonian that describes all the relevant degrees of freedom in the
system. You keep on casting doubt on well established physics about the
Standard Model, QFT and the way it leads to the effective models that
can be used to describe lab experiments using polarizers.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQYKQ_qAVR3f42PjDO2zxxZGJT%3DtMwdFm0Zf58b95zTtg%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQYKQ_qAVR3f42PjDO2zxxZGJT%3DtMwdFm0Zf58b95zTtg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4537e193dd60f3d4d4e19a7392cb58e6%40zonnet.nl.

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

On 09-04-2022 07:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:28 AM smitra wrote:

On 08-04-2022 07:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:

Permanent records do follow from entanglement and decoherence.

There

is no reason to suppose that algorithms processing information are
going to produce permanent records. Unless they do, they are

useless

as a model of observation. In the words of David Albert

(paraphrased):

"The task of fundamental physics is to explain the manifest image

Decoherence is never complete it can in principle be reversed.

These IR photons have nothing whatsoever to do with observation. And
it's FAPP, not in principle, anyway. If I observe something then that's
due to my brain processing information, so, it's the processing of
information by a particular algorithm that's the key thing here, not
that decoherence happens and that IR photons would make this
irreversible.

That this is FAPP and not in principle, follows from the fact that IR
photons can be reflected back. So, one can consider a closed system
within which an observer exists. If we impose reflecting boundary
conditions at some distance, then the number of modes of the
electromagnetic field below a certain energy E is finite. And the amount
of information carried by photons with wavelength much larger than the
size of the experimental system is small, as for those photons that are
emitted, there are only a small number of distinct photon states.

What's the physical basis for assuming the universe can or could
reverse at some point in the future?

You may argue that a FAPP permanent record is good enough for
observation, but you cannot define a physical plausible rigorous
boundary of your FAPP criterion.

I can and have. The irreversibility occasioned by the escape of IR
photons is a rigorous boundary.

The escape of IR photons has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability
of the brain to process information.

One can always subtract 1 second from
your time limit the universe must keep on expanding before starting
to
evolve backward. One then eventually ends up with the criterion that

there must be enough time for the brain processes that cause the
conscious experience of the observation to be completed.

Irrelevant speculation.

The irrelevant thing here (IR photons) was introduced by you.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMwh-CjeOPfzaDgNFwEjYtXsj83%3DB70%2BeadbaXdxsAtQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQMwh-CjeOPfzaDgNFwEjYtXsj83%3DB70%2BeadbaXdxsAtQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/81113285d66f52a6d6df64858d050724%40zonnet.nl.

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

On 09-04-2022 06:56, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 11:02 AM smitra wrote:

This assumption is not valid in QM. In deterministic theories the
assumption is valid if the theory is local. But by conforming the QM

result one does not prove non-locality. One only proves that a
deterministic theory underlying QM must be nonlocal.

I understood that MWI was deterministic. Then, by your reasoning, it
must be non-local.

Determinism is invoked in the derivation of Bell inequalities in the
sense of de experimental outcomes being predetermined. That's not the
case in the MWI because there is not a single outcome.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEwoQC1AMu3hCST%3DKKKy06chRc_tX0F%2Bp%2BOp%3DUxJ0hqw%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEwoQC1AMu3hCST%3DKKKy06chRc_tX0F%2Bp%2BOp%3DUxJ0hqw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72e27f654fbf00dcda8451e94011d3b1%40zonnet.nl.

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

On 09-04-2022 06:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:24 PM smitra wrote:

On 09-04-2022 04:41, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM smitra wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

"The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett
interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of the
unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can

generate

correlations that violate a Bell inequality because it doesn't

satisfy

the implicit assumption that Bell made that measurements have a

single

outcome. In fact, Bell's theorem can be proven in the Many-Worlds
framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single

outcome.

Therefore a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as

demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes."

What a remarkably silly argument. The writer here is claiming that
since Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many worlds, many worlds can
give a local account of the correlations. It is amazing that so

many

people claim this, but no one has ever given this remarkable local
account of the Bell correlations; in many worlds, or in any other
theory.

No, it says that MWI is local because of unitary time evolution
(which
is then assumed to be generated by a local Hamiltonian) So, MWI is
local
by definition once we use the correct Hamiltonian defined by the
known
laws of physics. Then given that MWI is local and deterministic and
yet
it violates Bell's inequalities (because it reproduces QM
predictions
correctly), it follows that the MWI must violate an assumption Bell
made. And that is then that measurements have single outcomes. This
is
violated in the MWI. You can also say that this makes MWI violate
realism as John Clark has pointed out often on this list.

So, to end this interminable argument, just give this fabulous local
many worlds account of the Bell correlations. It is all very well to
claim that MWI is manifestly local, then step sideways and avoid
giving the required local account of the correlations. In a sense,
Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant if a local account of the
correlations can be provided. So provide it, and the argument is over.

We start at t = 0 with everything ready to start creating the entangled
pairs of spins. Alice and Bob will make their way tki distant locations
and perform measurements on their spins, then return to meet each other
and compute the correlations using the data in their logbooks. The final
results will be published at time T. The local account that describes
the entire process is formally given by:

|final state> = exp[-i H t/hbar]|initial state>

where H is the local Standard Model Hamiltonian.

Saibal

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTMBiTsmhJ-0Hu5%3DcQ8HtE__XJdg0s4gqyGuEHxv6YARQ%40mail.gmail.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTMBiTsmhJ-0Hu5%3DcQ8HtE__XJdg0s4gqyGuEHxv6YARQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccbb6794c4dd2c6d00326a4d8f643189%40zonnet.nl.

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

2022-04-09 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 6:18 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

>> After reading your posts on this email list for the last several weeks I
>> have become convinced that nobody will *EVER* be able to convince you of
>> this to your satisfaction because your "scientific" opinion on this
>> matter is based on emotion not logic. And an opinion that is not based
>> on logic cannot be destroyed or even modified by logic, not even in theory.
>> Your mind is invulnerable to any attack logic might mount against it.
>>
>
> *> So you can't provide this local account?*
>

I already have, I tried using a logical argument but that didn't work at
all, your opinion did not change one iota and for reasons you never made
clear. I now don't believe there exists a logical argument that ever would
convince you. It's theoretically conceivable there exists a purely
emotional appeal that would cause you to change your mind, but I'll leave
that to others to find because I'm not very good with that sort of thing.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

yrn

>

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3mDGnduOz-0u1gJB81mfhY8nj-TkVv_RxsRo79yS0Oig%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-04-09 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Idea. Would not quantum dualism be more possible via the existence of a 4+ 
physical universe(s)? They mirror or extension lives somewhere else out of 
sight. Yet as Galileo once said, "It moves, still." 

-Original Message-
From: George Kahrimanis 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Apr 8, 2022 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism

Saibal wrote
> [...] it's not appropriate to fix up the theory by introducing notions from 
> the macroscopic domain that should in principle follow from the fundamental 
> dynamics at the micro-level. [...]

Brent wrote
> The notion of "result" and "measurement" are not introduced, they are 
> fundamental to knowledge.  They are exactly where MWI gets into trouble. [...]

If there is a disagreement, we should take care to clarify what is it about. A 
putative reductionist view accepts a theory as fundamental, perhaps along with 
some constraints on initial conditions, and claims that "observer", "result", 
and "measurement" will emerge. Right?

I think that this cannot work, because there is some unavoidable approximation 
in the translation from "a quantum state of a part of the world" to "this 
quasi-solid apparatus, observer, and environment (which may be part of the 
observer)". With conventional QM, we express this approximation as the 
very-very small probability of the apparatus quantum-tunneling through the 
floor, and so on. With a MWI, I do not see how we can formulate this 
approximation from the reductionist point of view.

So there is a dualism: The supposedly fundamental theory applies to an 
imagined, objective world, and it also applies to the world of our experience. 
There is a connection of course, because if the latter were untrue then we 
could have no clue about the validity of the theory in the objective world. A 
key notion here is workability of the theory: that it tolerates the 
impossibility of infinite precision, so it works in both worlds.

Brent continued
> [...] By saying there is no result of an experiment it muddles the concept of 
> probability.

Although I have seen proposals for introducing probability in a MWI (Zurek, 
Vaidman, John K. Clark), they cannot refer to the notion of aleatory 
probability, involving randomisation, as when one shuffles a deck of cards or 
shakes and rolls dice. On the other hand, conventional QM does assume that dice 
are rolled, and so the requisite randomisation is supposedly introduced, and we 
can speak of probability proper. Where is the randomisation in a MWI? (A 
rhetorical question.) So, there is no probability (strictly speaking) in a MWI. 
We can only identify something-like-probability; I have posted about this 
subject in a recent thread.

George K.-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2d8ceac7-def7-4efd-a1a3-0fbe426ddd66n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1005310743.158440.1649545184503%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: At last, an experimental deviation from the standard model of particle physics has been observed

2022-04-09 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Just bothering, but yeah repeat the experiment more than once, confirm or deny 
it's validity. If confirmed then its new physics beyond the standard model. My 
question as always is what might be the impact on our species. Nu? Speculation 
is fair because it need not be accurate. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Apr 8, 2022 8:59 am
Subject: At last, an experimental deviation from the standard model of particle 
physics has been observed

In Yesterday's issue of the journal Science physicist report they have measured 
the mass of the W-Boson, a mediator of the week nuclear force, to within 0.01%, 
by far the most accurate ever made, and they found it differed from the 
theoretical prediction the standard model says it should have by 7 standard 
deviations, only 5 are needed to claim a discovery. If the experimentalists 
have not made some systematic error in their measurements, and currently 
there's no evidence they have, then this is wonderful , the first hint  of 
physics beyond the standard model.  
High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
whb-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv39%3DsbbwjOXP4i-2DN9fjOCK8kPXsoFUbmS1Si1HxjHYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1077235714.160337.1649544804396%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 10:19 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:57 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> So you can provide the long-sought local explanation of the violation
>> of the Bell inequalities, can you? In terms of many worlds, or any other
>> theory you choose. That is interesting, because Saibal is not able to do
>> this. Neither is anyone else on this email list.*
>>
>
> After reading your posts on this email list for the last several weeks I
> have become convinced that nobody will *EVER* be able to convince you of
> this to your satisfaction because your "scientific" opinion on this matter is
> based on emotion not logic. And an opinion that is not based on logic
> cannot be destroyed or even modified by logic, not even in theory. Your
> mind is invulnerable to any attack logic might mount against it.
>


So you can't provide this local account?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTab68JC1z8F-MJaSyBE%2BN8GPQh4NGSGmq%2Bi3xKj_6hXg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

2022-04-09 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:57 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> So you can provide the long-sought local explanation of the violation of
> the Bell inequalities, can you? In terms of many worlds, or any other
> theory you choose. That is interesting, because Saibal is not able to do
> this. Neither is anyone else on this email list.*
>

After reading your posts on this email list for the last several weeks I
have become convinced that nobody will *EVER* be able to convince you of
this to your satisfaction because your "scientific" opinion on this matter is
based on emotion not logic. And an opinion that is not based on logic
cannot be destroyed or even modified by logic, not even in theory. Your
mind is invulnerable to any attack logic might mount against it.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

p7v

-- 
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 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0oiVo342EFqaZ-YZ2TvPi7aU9T__uEKWDtsai%2B-6FF7A%40mail.gmail.com.

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