Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

Hi Pierz, On 21 Jun 2017, at 15:31, Pierz wrote: Bruno, do you believe there is a different world for every possible basis in which a spin (or other observable) might be measured? That seems pretty strange. I believe in 0 worlds, but in many relative computational histories, in

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

Bruno, do you believe there is a different world for every possible basis in which a spin (or other observable) might be measured? That seems pretty strange. On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:27:14 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 20 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2017 11:47 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why would you say that if I fly from Bermuda to London it demonstrates that flights from Bermuda to Algiers and Algiers to London exist? Why should I not when I can find interference pattern

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 19 Jun 2017, at 19:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/19/2017 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So back to quantum computation: what I think that QC demonstrates (independently of it being realised by network models or cluster states) is that the superposition of states really does mean that the

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:08:42 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/19/2017 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > So back to quantum computation: what I think that QC demonstrates > (independently of it being realised by network models or cluster > states) is that the superposition of states

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6/19/2017 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So back to quantum computation: what I think that QC demonstrates (independently of it being realised by network models or cluster states) is that the superposition of states really does mean that the various states *exist*. Superposition of states

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 18 Jun 2017, at 21:17, Brent Meeker wrote: On 6/18/2017 3:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: No, but it does mean that a quantum computer can have the computational power of a lot of Turing machines acting in parallel, and it is normal to ask "why?", and be unsatisfied with a theory that

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6/18/2017 3:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: No, but it does mean that a quantum computer can have the computational power of a lot of Turing machines acting in parallel, and it is normal to ask "why?", and be unsatisfied with a theory that does not answer this question. I have come across an

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

The Michael Cuffaro associated paper is a thesis of David Deutsch at Oxford from 20 years ago (and more). Deutsch also holds that we cannot in principle contact our own past, but an exact, parallel Earth is doable (in theory), so you can assassinate your clone's grandfather. For me, my

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

> No, but it does mean that a quantum computer can have the > computational power of a lot of Turing machines acting in parallel, > and it is normal to ask "why?", and be unsatisfied with a theory that > does not answer this question. > > > I have come across an interesting paper that discusses

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 16 Jun 2017, at 04:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 15/06/2017 6:01 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jun 2017, at 01:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: You seem to be taking the older view of many worlds that is favoured by David Deutsch. This approach has serious problems with the notorious basis

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 15/06/2017 6:01 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jun 2017, at 01:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: You seem to be taking the older view of many worlds that is favoured by David Deutsch. This approach has serious problems with the notorious basis problem, and there does not seem to be any principled

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: ​> ​ > If you take the wave function seriously, then you take > ​ ​ > seriously that qubits really do exist in a superposition of states, > ​ ​ > and this explains the exponential increase in computational power as >

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 15 Jun 2017, at 06:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:19:56 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote 6/13/2017 4:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > The reason why it would follow is precisely the point of my rhetorical > question above. If you take the wave function seriously, then you

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 14 Jun 2017, at 19:11, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​Even the 2-slit experiment will not produce interference if you remove the photographic plate and just allow the photons to continue into infinite space after they

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 14 Jun 2017, at 01:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: You seem to be taking the older view of many worlds that is favoured by David Deutsch. This approach has serious problems with the notorious basis problem, and there does not seem to be any principled way from within the theory to select

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:19:56 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote 6/13/2017 4:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > The reason why it would follow is precisely the point of my rhetorical > question above. If you take the wave function seriously, then you take > seriously that qubits

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​>> ​ >> Even the 2-slit experiment will not produce interference if you remove >> the photographic plate and just allow the photons to continue into infinite >> space after they pass the slits because then the world

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 12 Jun 2017, at 17:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​Deutsch is out to lunch on this. He appears to assume that a quantum computer is just using the same algorithms that a classical computer would use, only

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

6/13/2017 4:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: The reason why it would follow is precisely the point of my rhetorical question above. If you take the wave function seriously, then you take seriously that qubits really do exist in a superposition of states, and this explains the exponential increase in

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

You seem to be taking the older view of many worlds that is favoured by David Deutsch. This approach has serious problems with the notorious basis problem, and there does not seem to be any principled way from within the theory to select unambiguosly the basis in which all of these worlds

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11 Jun 2017, at 19:07, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jun 2017 16:44, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 11 Jun 2017, at 12:24, David Nyman wrote: On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: On 9 June 2017 at

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 13/06/2017 9:11 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/06/2017 1:31 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: I think you built a straw man and now you're attacking it. When I heard Deutsch make the argument, he was referring

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​I agree Interference must take place in a single world, but where did >> all the information that produced the interference come from, where did the >> computations that produced all those wrong answers

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 11/06/2017 1:31 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >>> >>> On 10/06/2017 2:36 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jun 9,

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 13/06/2017 1:09 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Bruce Kellett >wrote: ​ > Scott Aaronson points out: "/The way a quantum algorithms work is that they arrange for wrong answers to destructively

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​ > Deutsch is out to lunch on this. He appears to assume that a quantum > computer is just using the same algorithms that a classical computer would > use, only executing them in a massively parallel manner.

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11/06/2017 7:14 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal > wrote: OK. In this case, Alice choose to measure her spin. This will only self-localized here in one

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11/06/2017 1:31 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 10/06/2017 2:36 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Bruce Kellett The idea that the explanation is epistemological rather that ontological

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11 Jun 2017 16:44, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 11 Jun 2017, at 12:24, David Nyman wrote: On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: > > On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11 Jun 2017, at 12:24, David Nyman wrote: On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 10:38

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: > > On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 10/06/2017 2:36 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Bruce Kellett >> >>> The idea that the explanation is epistemological rather that ontological >>> has >>> been my preferred

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 10/06/2017 4:21 am, David Nyman wrote: On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal > wrote: OK. In this case, Alice choose to measure her spin. This will only self-localized here in one (actually still aleph_0) histories, where she will

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 10/06/2017 2:36 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Bruce Kellett The idea that the explanation is epistemological rather that ontological has been my preferred position for a long time. If the wave-function is merely an epistemological device for calculating

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 06 Jun 2017, at

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 8/06/2017 11:25 pm, David Nyman wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2017 12:50 p.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: > > On 8/06/2017 9:06 pm, David Nyman wrote: > > > Yes, this is also the point where I

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 8/06/2017 11:25 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Jun 2017 12:50 p.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 8/06/2017 9:06 pm, David Nyman wrote: Yes, this is also the point where I stumble. I've been trying somewhat inarticulately

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 8 Jun 2017 12:50 p.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/06/2017 9:06 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Jun 2017 11:40 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/06/2017 7:52 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Jun 2017 1:05 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" <

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 8/06/2017 9:06 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Jun 2017 11:40 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: On 8/06/2017 7:52 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Jun 2017 1:05 a.m., "Bruce Kellett"

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 8 Jun 2017 11:40 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 8/06/2017 7:52 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Jun 2017 1:05 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: The question then, is whether many worlds can provide a fully local

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

http://mccabism.blogspot.be/2010/10/many-worlds-and-quantum-fungibility.html Virus-free. www.avg.com

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-06-08 12:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > On 8/06/2017 7:52 pm, David Nyman wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2017 1:05 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > The question then, is whether many worlds can provide a fully local

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 8/06/2017 7:52 pm, David Nyman wrote: On 8 Jun 2017 1:05 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" > wrote: The question then, is whether many worlds can provide a fully local account of this situation. I claim, with most present day

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 8 Jun 2017 1:05 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> I have been through

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw. Let me summarize briefly

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 07 Jun 2017, at 04:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 5:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Here I found a not too bad paper on this subtle subject: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3827.pdf He do the calculus that different people have done sometimes. I mainly agree with it, but read it quickly.

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw. Have you a link. The

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw. Let me summarize briefly what he did. He has a very cumbersome notation, but

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: I have been through this before. I looked at Price again this morning and was frankly appalled at the stupidity of what I saw. Have you a link. The webpage seems to be no more available at

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 06 Jun 2017, at 01:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/06/2017 8:42 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Jun 2017, at 05:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: Your claim

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 7/06/2017 5:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Here I found a not too bad paper on this subtle subject: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.3827.pdf He do the calculus that different people have done sometimes. I mainly agree with it, but read it quickly. His notation is somewhat difficult to follow.

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6 June 2017 at 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 6/06/2017 10:21 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 6 June 2017 at 00:23, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On 5/06/2017 8:42 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I am not alone

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

I am completely new to Google Groups, and so I hope you may understand if my intrusion here is inappropriate or if I break any protocols in replying to this topic. I came across this Group while searching for a paper. I was very taken by Pierz’s first statement, as it reminded me of my own

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 05 Jun 2017, at 19:09, David Nyman wrote: On 5 June 2017 at 17:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Jun 2017, at 15:48, David Nyman wrote: On 5 June 2017 at 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Jun 2017 1:05

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6/06/2017 10:21 am, David Nyman wrote: On 6 June 2017 at 00:23, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 5/06/2017 8:42 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not alone skeptical about inferring that the violation of the Bell

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6 June 2017 at 00:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 5/06/2017 8:42 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 05 Jun 2017, at 05:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 02 Jun

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 5 June 2017 at 17:38, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Jun 2017, at 15:48, David Nyman wrote: > > On 5 June 2017 at 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal"

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 05 Jun 2017, at 15:48, David Nyman wrote: On 5 June 2017 at 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 5 June 2017 at 14:22, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: > > > On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 04 Jun 2017, at 14:48, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 05 Jun 2017, at 05:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: Your claim appears to be that Bell's theorem is not valid in MWI. Bell's theorem is valid. His inequality

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 05 Jun 2017, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: In QM, with or without collapse, decoherence and the transition from the pure state to a mixture gives a definite measurement result. In particular

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 5/06/2017 12:19 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: Your claim appears to be that Bell's theorem is not valid in MWI. Bell's theorem is valid. His inequality does not even assume QM, but just locality. I

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 4/06/2017 10:05 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: In QM, with or without collapse, decoherence and the transition from the pure state to a mixture gives a definite measurement result. In particular branches only. When looking at the whole wave

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > I was juste arguing against John Clarks idea that the Bell's inequality > violation introduce physical action at a distance, even with the MWI. ​That's ​not exactly correct, what I actually said was *at least* one

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 04 Jun 2017, at 08:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: Sure, we can take the same drug and talk about our experiences, and conclude that they were similar. And they probably were. But ultimately, there is a language grounding problem. We have no way of comparing qualia, private experience. I cannot

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 4 Jun 2017 1:05 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 02 Jun 2017, at 04:06, Bruce Kellett wrote: (answered in my previous post). In quantum mechanics, this change is brought about by the unitary processes of decoherence, As Everett explains well, and suggest already this makes any influence at a distance only apparent, but never real.

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 02 Jun 2017, at 03:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 May 2017, at

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 4 Jun 2017 7:53 a.m., "Telmo Menezes" wrote: > Sure, we can take the same drug and talk about our experiences, and > > conclude that they were similar. And they probably were. But > ultimately, there is a language grounding problem. We have no way of > comparing

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

> Sure, we can take the same drug and talk about our experiences, and > > conclude that they were similar. And they probably were. But > ultimately, there is a language grounding problem. We have no way of > comparing qualia, private experience. I cannot even verify > experimentally that you are

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 3/06/2017 4:07 pm, smitra wrote: On 03-06-2017 05:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/06/2017 11:38 am, smitra wrote: On 03-06-2017 02:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/06/2017 9:16 am, smitra wrote: In a single universe theory, this implies non-locality, because of the absence of local hidden

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 03-06-2017 05:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/06/2017 11:38 am, smitra wrote: On 03-06-2017 02:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/06/2017 9:16 am, smitra wrote: In a single universe theory, this implies non-locality, because of the absence of local hidden variables. If local hidden variable

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 3/06/2017 11:38 am, smitra wrote: On 03-06-2017 02:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/06/2017 9:16 am, smitra wrote: In a single universe theory, this implies non-locality, because of the absence of local hidden variables. If local hidden variable were to exist then you could say that Alice

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 03-06-2017 02:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/06/2017 9:16 am, smitra wrote: In a single universe theory, this implies non-locality, because of the absence of local hidden variables. If local hidden variable were to exist then you could say that Alice and Bob where to find whatever they

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 3/06/2017 9:16 am, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 10:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 5:31 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 04:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 12:00 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: On 01-06-2017

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 2 Jun 2017 22:32, "Telmo Menezes" wrote: On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:53 PM, David Nyman wrote: > On 2 June 2017 at 14:34, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Nyman wrote:

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 02-06-2017 10:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 5:31 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 04:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 12:00 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 5:53 PM, David Nyman wrote: > On 2 June 2017 at 14:34, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Nyman wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 2 Jun 2017 14:02, "Telmo Menezes"

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 2 June 2017 at 20:14, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 6/2/2017 12:01 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 2 Jun 2017 19:18, "Brent Meeker" wrote: > > > > On 6/2/2017 6:21 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > I don't see how such experimental evidence can be

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 2 June 2017 at 14:34, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > > > On 2 Jun 2017 14:02, "Telmo Menezes" wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:21 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > > On 2 Jun 2017 14:02, "Telmo Menezes" wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: >>> >>> On 01-06-2017

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 2 Jun 2017 14:02, "Telmo Menezes" wrote: On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: >> >> On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: >> >> On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>> On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> Non-locality is not removed in MWI as you appear to believe. >>>

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 2/06/2017 5:31 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 04:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 12:00 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Non-locality

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 02-06-2017 04:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 12:00 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Non-locality is not removed in MWI as you appear

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 2/06/2017 12:00 pm, smitra wrote: On 02-06-2017 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Non-locality is not removed in MWI as you appear to believe. For me the abandon of the

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 1/06/2017 10:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 13:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 8:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 09:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 31/05/2017 4:40 pm, Pierz wrote: >> On 5/30/2017 7:30 PM, Pierz wrote: >>> Thanks for these

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 02-06-2017 02:07, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Non-locality is not removed in MWI as you appear to believe. For me the abandon of the collapse is the solution of the EPR

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 1/06/2017 10:19 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote: I get your point

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 2/06/2017 7:28 am, smitra wrote: On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Non-locality is not removed in MWI as you appear to believe. For me the abandon of the collapse is the solution of the EPR "paradox", and Aspect experience is somehow the

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 01-06-2017 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote: I get your point with decoherence. Again, I would say that it all

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 1 June 2017 at 02:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 1/06/2017 6:28 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 31 May 2017 at 04:55, Bruce Kellett < > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On 31/05/2017 12:30 pm, Pierz wrote: >> >> Thanks for these

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 01 Jun 2017, at 13:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 8:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 09:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 31/05/2017 4:40 pm, Pierz wrote: >> On 5/30/2017 7:30 PM, Pierz wrote: >>> Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 01 Jun 2017, at 03:59, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 6:28 am, David Nyman wrote: On 31 May 2017 at 04:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 31/05/2017 12:30 pm, Pierz wrote: Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be very lucid and

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 01 Jun 2017, at 02:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 1/06/2017 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 May 2017, at 04:01, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/05/2017 9:35 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 May 2017, at 11:28, Telmo Menezes wrote: I get your point with decoherence. Again, I would say that it

  1   2   >