Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

I am not going to argue for MWI particularly, though I will say a bit next paragraph. The idea there are retro-causal influences that underlie apparent quantum nonlocality is simply wrong. The Kochen-Specker theorem illustrates limits on hidden variables, which means a measurement of an

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:15, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: You clearly have not grasped the implications of my argument. The idea that "MWI replaces all nonsensical weirdness

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: You

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 23 Nov 2017, at 23:48, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 2:51:56 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 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

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 8:22:37 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:15, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I am new to this list and have not followed all the arguments here. In > weighing in here I might be making an error of not addressing things > properly. > >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 2:29:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Nov 2017, at 15:59, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 5:53:14 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 24/11/2017 10:15 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM, wrote: > >> Those who believe in non-locality as established by experimental > evidence, such as Brent and Bruce, and I assume Lawrence as well, do NOT > conclude this implies the future influences the past. > If you also believe in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:05:17 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 8:21 PM, > wrote: > > >> >> Those who believe in non-locality as established by experimental >> evidence, such as Brent and Bruce, and I assume Lawrence as well, do NOT >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:33 PM, wrote: ​>​ > As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The > electron, say, moves through space as a wave -- which explains the > interference effects due to splitting into two waves, each emanating from > one of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:36 PM, wrote: > ​> ​ > Feynman, who wasn't an MWI enthusiast > ​ [...] > *​"​Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" ​[...]

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 11:46:03 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:33 PM, > wrote: > > ​>​ >> As for collapse, it's easily seen in the double slit experiment. The >> electron, say, moves through space as a wave -- which explains the >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:55:24 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:36 PM, > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> Feynman, who wasn't an MWI enthusiast >> ​ [...] >> > > *​"​Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading >

Feynman and the Everything

Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: "It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

We've had the MW vs collapse debate many times on this list, as well as on FOAR and Extropy-Chat lists. I might suggest searching the history of these groups to see some of the points and counter points to each issue as I see many of them repeated here. I'm including a summary of some of the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:18 AM, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 24 November 2017 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: Hi Lawrence, and welcome to the 'everything' list. I have come here to > avoid the endless politics on the 'avoid' list. > What is the "avoid" list? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, wrote: You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing > Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it purports to do away > with; multiple, indeed infinite observers with the same memories and life >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27/11/2017 3:58 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 November 2017 at 10:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Hi Lawrence, and welcome to the 'everything' list. I have come here to avoid the endless politics on the 'avoid' list.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, < > agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room;

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, wrote: >>> >>> You

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27/11/2017 4:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 November 2017 at 13:33,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>> wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, > wrote: You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it purports to

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:36 AM, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:23:48 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 7:12:09 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 17:54, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:45:43 AM UTC, stathisp wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, wrote: > > You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing >> Many Worlds creates hugely more complications than it purports to do away >> with;

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 26 November 2017 at 13:33, wrote: >> >> You keep ignoring the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room; introducing >>> Many Worlds

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:07:03 AM UTC, stathisp wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 November 2017 at 17:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 27/11/2017 4:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/11/2017 4:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 26 November 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:44:25 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:25, wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27 November 2017 at 17:36, wrote: > > > On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:30:34 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 6:21:30 AM UTC, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, wrote: >>>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27/11/2017 5:20 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:54, > wrote: On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:48:58 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 27,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 27/11/2017 5:17 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 17:04, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 27/11/2017 4:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 27 November 2017 at 16:19, Bruce Kellett