Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:24:48 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22 Nov 2017, at 04:09, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to derive

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21 Nov 2017, at 21:57, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: . ​>> ​Does non locality mean the future influences the past as Clark alleged? ​> ​No. ​"​realism plus arrow of time preservation and quantum mechanics are

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21 Nov 2017, at 06:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: ​ The title of this thread is about the consistency of Quantum Mechanics, but far more important than QM is the ability of ANY theory to be compatible with experimental results, and one of those

Consistency of Postulates of QM

Brent Meeker wrote: >> But Copenhagen is no better at deriving the Born Rule nor is any other >> quantum >> interpretation although Gleason's Theorem says that if the quantum wave >> function >> is related to probability then the square of the absolute valueis the >> only one that >> doesn't

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/11/2017 12:36 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: The singlet state is intrinsically non-local. I am not sure what that means, but I can imagine this could make sense in the "one-world" hypothesis,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/11/2017 12:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On