The Ilusion of Branching and the MWI

[agrayson2000]

AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude 
the wave function has only epistemic content. So I have embraced the "shut 
up and calculate" interpretation of the wave function. I also see a 
connection between the True Believers of the MWI, and Trump sycophants; 
they seem immune to simple facts, such as the foolishness of thinking 
copies of observers can occur, or be created, willy-nilly. AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Ah, thanks professor.


Do we send Curiosity on Mars for a buzz? Your question is close to the question 
“what is the meaning of life?”. Is a baby useful? And for what? Would the human 
species have survived without nature endowing reproduction with some buzz? 

Yes, for the space scientists. However, for me, its what we can mine on Mars, 
using robots and ship to earth. We probably don't need to mine Mars, but the 
easier asteroid belt not far from Mars. 
Money-Materialism-to-Make-walking-robots-and-electric-cars-and-quantum-computers!
An equation may at some point a new vista in the human endeavor, but as you 
indicated, this is not clear..


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Aug 4, 2018 7:29 am
Subject: Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?





On 3 Aug 2018, at 23:36, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:


An apt question (for me) is how knowing that we dwell within a Diophantine 
equation help matters?





The goal is just to search the truth. Now, does searching the truth helps? That 
is not entirely obvious, and we all know that some lies can be more confortable 
for many people.


To be sure, we are dwelling more within a Universal Diophantine equation than 
in a Universal Turing relation, or in a universal combinators, as they do all 
the same thing. The point is that is testable, and I predicted the 
“many-worlds” from this, so an application is to derive physics from that 
universal thing, whenever shape it has (diophantine, combinators, etc.). 










 Help, our specie in either engineering (building new stuff) or mentally? 



The big bomb was the discovery of the universal machine/combinators/equation.


That just the Diophantine equation(s) provide(s) a universal machine or 
machinery blow the mind, and is very conuterintuive. How could a polynomial 
(whose exponent are finite integer) emulates (simulates exactly) the function 
sending the natural number x to x^x. Many mathematicians, including famous one, 
thought that this was just impossible. Now we know it is possible, and the 
proof has been constructive, so we can build a polynomial which indeed simulate 
a super-exponential function. This also solved one of the problem asked by 
Hilbert in his list of the most fundamental and important problem to solve: is 
there an algorithm telling us if a diophantine equation admit a solution of 
not. The existence of a universal polynomial solves that problem negatively. If 
such an algorithm existed, we could solve the halting Turing machine problem, 
given that for each Turing machine, there is a diophantine polynomial equation 
which simulate it exactly.








Or is the Diophantine thing, just a mental buzz that people gifted with 
tightly, wired neurons, (spindle cells?) find great pleasure? 





Do we send Curiosity on Mars for a buzz? Your question is close to the question 
“what is the meaning of life?”. Is a baby useful? And for what? Would the human 
species have survived without nature endowing reproduction with some buzz? 


Different mathematicians have different motivation. Some do it for the sheer 
beauty. Others because they are driven by the mystery. Still others search only 
Glory, etc.
Hardy, the number- theorist wrote an apology, because he did number theory only 
for beauty, and thought that none of his work could have any application. But 
the rise of computers and the use of number theory in cryptography has everyday 
application now, like when you are using a bank cart or an identity cart. In 
fact, most of pure mathematics get applied soon or later. Even “1+2+3+4+5+6+ … 
= -1/12” found application in quantum superstring theory. Some would say, OK, 
but nobody has found any application to Superstring theory, except to speculate 
on some way to marry QM and GR. Well, ironically enough, the boson string 
theory has found application in … number theory.










I envy you your intellectual superiority in this (no, I am not mocking!) 



Some people can be more gifted than others in some domain,but that does not 
make them superior. The great genius can say great stupidities, usually out of 
their field, but even in their field: they can miss the next revolution, even 
prevented it. Stupid people are only person lacking trust in themselves, and 
that is usually due to a problem of communication, notably of 
“love-communication”, very usually by parents having had the same problem. 
As a teacher, I have not yet met someone intrinsically stupid. I have met lazy 
people, shy people, or people deciding to be stupid, as it simplifies the life 
a lot,: they get an easy excuse for any failure, and they get free of 
responsibility and guilt. I have work with highly disabled people, some of them 
where unable to talk, but with computers I have seen that, well, some were 
lazy, other shy, etc. They were not stupid at all, just very handicapped, which 
somehow makes the handicap even more sad.
Intelligence can take many 

Re: The Ilusion of Branching and the MWI

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 10:00:58 PM UTC, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Do you really think that using your words, insults and so on will convince 
> anyone?
>

*No, of course not They're beyond being effected by simple logic, or common 
sense, which became extinct not so long ago. They can't face the fact that 
not every mathematical equation or concept is reified in the physical  
world, and examples of this exist in classical physics, such as plane waves 
or advanced solutions of Maxwell's equations. Does any human being have the 
power to create uncountable universes with uncountable copies of himself, 
replete with his memory? Hard to imagine a more foolish idea. AG*

>
> How old are you? C'est ridicule. 
>



 

>
> Le sam. 4 août 2018 à 23:32, > a écrit :
>
>> AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude 
>> the wave function has only epistemic content. So I have embraced the "shut 
>> up and calculate" interpretation of the wave function. I also see a 
>> connection between the True Believers of the MWI, and Trump sycophants; 
>> they seem immune to simple facts, such as the foolishness of thinking 
>> copies of observers can occur, or be created, willy-nilly. AG
>>
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Ilusion of Branching and the MWI

[Quentin Anciaux]

Do you really think that using your words, insults and so on will convince
anyone?

How old are you? C'est ridicule.

Le sam. 4 août 2018 à 23:32,  a écrit :

> AFAIK, no one has ever observed a probability wave, from which I conclude
> the wave function has only epistemic content. So I have embraced the "shut
> up and calculate" interpretation of the wave function. I also see a
> connection between the True Believers of the MWI, and Trump sycophants;
> they seem immune to simple facts, such as the foolishness of thinking
> copies of observers can occur, or be created, willy-nilly. AG
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Decoherence Theory according to Schlosshauer

[agrayson2000]

As long as the universe is not resolved into individual subsystems *(that 
is, no tensor decomposition of the WF)*, there is no measurement problem.

IMO, highly doubtful, or minimally outside the domain of quantum theory 
where there is such a thing as measurements, and thus the dualism being 
denied as the conceptual solution of the measurement problem. 
(https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312059.pdf, page 8, bold added) AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Aug 2018, at 23:36, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> An apt question (for me) is how knowing that we dwell within a Diophantine 
> equation help matters?


The goal is just to search the truth. Now, does searching the truth helps? That 
is not entirely obvious, and we all know that some lies can be more confortable 
for many people.

To be sure, we are dwelling more within a Universal Diophantine equation than 
in a Universal Turing relation, or in a universal combinators, as they do all 
the same thing. The point is that is testable, and I predicted the 
“many-worlds” from this, so an application is to derive physics from that 
universal thing, whenever shape it has (diophantine, combinators, etc.). 





> Help, our specie in either engineering (building new stuff) or mentally?

The big bomb was the discovery of the universal machine/combinators/equation.

That just the Diophantine equation(s) provide(s) a universal machine or 
machinery blow the mind, and is very conuterintuive. How could a polynomial 
(whose exponent are finite integer) emulates (simulates exactly) the function 
sending the natural number x to x^x. Many mathematicians, including famous one, 
thought that this was just impossible. Now we know it is possible, and the 
proof has been constructive, so we can build a polynomial which indeed simulate 
a super-exponential function. This also solved one of the problem asked by 
Hilbert in his list of the most fundamental and important problem to solve: is 
there an algorithm telling us if a diophantine equation admit a solution of 
not. The existence of a universal polynomial solves that problem negatively. If 
such an algorithm existed, we could solve the halting Turing machine problem, 
given that for each Turing machine, there is a diophantine polynomial equation 
which simulate it exactly.




> Or is the Diophantine thing, just a mental buzz that people gifted with 
> tightly, wired neurons, (spindle cells?) find great pleasure?


Do we send Curiosity on Mars for a buzz? Your question is close to the question 
“what is the meaning of life?”. Is a baby useful? And for what? Would the human 
species have survived without nature endowing reproduction with some buzz? 

Different mathematicians have different motivation. Some do it for the sheer 
beauty. Others because they are driven by the mystery. Still others search only 
Glory, etc.
Hardy, the number- theorist wrote an apology, because he did number theory only 
for beauty, and thought that none of his work could have any application. But 
the rise of computers and the use of number theory in cryptography has everyday 
application now, like when you are using a bank cart or an identity cart. In 
fact, most of pure mathematics get applied soon or later. Even “1+2+3+4+5+6+ … 
= -1/12” found application in quantum superstring theory. Some would say, OK, 
but nobody has found any application to Superstring theory, except to speculate 
on some way to marry QM and GR. Well, ironically enough, the boson string 
theory has found application in … number theory.





> I envy you your intellectual superiority in this (no, I am not mocking!)

Some people can be more gifted than others in some domain,but that does not 
make them superior. The great genius can say great stupidities, usually out of 
their field, but even in their field: they can miss the next revolution, even 
prevented it. Stupid people are only person lacking trust in themselves, and 
that is usually due to a problem of communication, notably of 
“love-communication”, very usually by parents having had the same problem. 
As a teacher, I have not yet met someone intrinsically stupid. I have met lazy 
people, shy people, or people deciding to be stupid, as it simplifies the life 
a lot,: they get an easy excuse for any failure, and they get free of 
responsibility and guilt. I have work with highly disabled people, some of them 
where unable to talk, but with computers I have seen that, well, some were 
lazy, other shy, etc. They were not stupid at all, just very handicapped, which 
somehow makes the handicap even more sad.
Intelligence can take many shapes, and very often, the idiocy is only the 
intelligence of the others. In fact, in normal situation every child is 
intelligent. Adulthood in programmed stupidity. Intelligence is the state of 
mind of believing we that we can learn, and that we don’t have the truth, + 
some self-trust. Stupidity is when we believe we have found the truth. Human 
are “superior” only because they have a much longer childhood during which they 
dare to ask question. 

Stupidity is efficacious in the short term goal. That is why you learn to obey 
when you do the military things. Short term goals and urgence is not friendly 
with the embarrassing difficult questions.



> and just wanting to place this in my own mind, being, a witless, dirty 
> fingered, dust-footed American peasant. All the best

All universal machine are born 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Aug 2018, at 12:52, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> 
>> Honestly you fail to convince me of any physical influence at a distance 
>> brought by Bell’s inequality violation when studied in the MW.
>>  Bell and Aspect works remain for me only decisive evidence that collapse 
>> never occurs, i.e. an evidence for Everett or some variants.
> 
> I thought that this might be the case. You are beyond reasoned argument on 
> this matter because your mind is made up.

Sentences like that deserves you.



> But, although I have failed to convince you, I hope I might have had some 
> success in convincing some others that you are talking a load of nonsense.
> 
> For the interest of anyone who is still listening, I attach some more 
> detailed notes that I have made recently on the issues involved with Bell's 
> theorem and non -locality. These notes were made for my own use, so that I 
> could have extensive quotes from the original sources to hand, and to make 
> sure that I had my own thoughts and arguments clear. The notes may, for that 
> reason, be a bit repetitive, but I hope we can live with that.


I will read your text. I sincerely hope it will enlighten me, or that at least 
we can agree that we interpret the SWE and/or the collapse differently. To be 
sure I have already some problem with your use of the term “world” in the first 
pages …  but I will continue. I hope you understand Maudlin’s argument that the 
many-minds is local. My feeling is that you are introducing some implicit 
collapse, and apparently this is what you accuse me of doing. We share that 
feeling!

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Aug 2018, at 03:09, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 3 Aug 2018, at 13:43, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
 On 2 Aug 2018, at 12:54, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 1 Aug 2018, at 21:12, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Indeed.  But the common-cause explanation doesn't work for all choices 
>>> of measurement angle.
>> 
>> It does. Well, it does not if you assume only one Bob and Alice, but the 
>> whole point is that it does if you take into account all Alices and Bobs 
>> in the multiverse. QM explains why in all branches, Alice and Bob will 
>> see the violation of Bell’s inequality, and this without any physical 
>> instantaneous causality on a distance. The MW theory is NOT an hidden 
>> variable theory in the sense of EPR or Bohm. The MW theory is based on 
>> the first person indeterminacy, and illustrate the first person plural 
>> aspect (contagion of duplication). Hidden variable theory in the sense 
>> of de Broglie, Böhm, or Einstein incompleteness are pure 3p theories, 
>> not involving the role of the person in the picture.
> 
> In that case you have a different theory, which is not quantum mechanics. 
> You can believe anything you like about your own private theories, but 
> you cannot expect others to join in. If we are talking about quantum 
> mechanics, then it would be polite to stick to that theory.
 
 I am talking about Quantum Mechanics without collapse. You are the one 
 seeming to interpret ud + du as a superposition  of worlds with Alice 
 having a particle in state u (and Bob having the corresponding particle in 
 state d) with worlds with Alice having a particle in state d (and Bob 
 having the corresponding particle in state u). That would contradict the 
 rotational symmetry of the singlet state.
>>> 
>>> The rotationally symmetric singlet is ud - du. The state you mention, ud+ 
>>> du, is the spin zero component of the triplet, which is not rotationally 
>>> symmetric.
>> 
>> I meant ud-du, which is the same state as u’d’-d’u’ up to some phase 
>> e^i*theta.
>> 
>>> 
>>> You ask how I interpret the singlet in MWI. That is quite simple -- it is 
>>> the same as in a collapse theory.
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>>> In MWI you just retain all the branches, branches that are discarded in the 
>>> single world theory. In both cases, the ud - du state is rotationally 
>>> symmetric when prepared, but that rotational symmetry is destroyed as soon 
>>> as the spin component of one particle is measured in a particular direction.
>> 
>> In the MWI it is never destroyed. It is just entangled with the memory of 
>> the observer (or the local environment containing the observer.
> 
> That is a remarkably silly thing to say. The only thing in this context that 
> is rotationally symmetric is the singlet state itself.

It never disappear if there is no collapse. It leads to a more general singlet 
state.


> The laboratory in which it was prepared is not rotationally symmetric; the 
> apparatus that prepared it is not rotationally symmetric; the technician who 
> operated the preparation apparatus is not rotationally symmetric; the 
> experimenter who measures it is not rotationally symmetric.

Of course.



> So as soon as the singlet interacts with any of these things -- becomes 
> entangled with a non-symmetric object -- then the rotational; symmetry of the 
> state is lost.

I don’t see that. It is lost in each branch, not in the global wave.



> This is just elementary physics of symmetry principles.
> 
>> Alice (ud -du) = Alice ud - Alice du =  Alice see up ud - Alice see down ud
> 
> There, can't you see what you have just done? You have explicitly invoked a 
> collapse! (And there is a sill typo in the last part of the equation

OK. Sorry.



> -- it should read 'Alice see down du'. Alice can't see down from the ud 
> component!)
> 
> But if we write this out a bit more explicitly so that the tensor product is 
> evident (using Dirac notation) we have:
> 
>|Alice> (|u>|d> - |d>|u>) --> |Alice sees up>|u>|d> - |Alice sees 
> down>|d>|u>.

Right.


> 
> I have used the arrow (-->) to indicate that this step involves an 
> interaction between the singlet and Alice and her apparatus -- which 
> necessarily breaks the symmetry. (It is not actually an equality.) But  you 
> have collapsed the wave function in this step, because 'Alice sees up' only 
> on the first half of the original wave function, so that Bob necessarily sees 
> only the |u>|d> portion of the original symmetric state when Alice sees up -- 
> he then necessarily gets the correlated (Bob sees down) result when Alice 
> sees up (for aligned 

Re: Combinators 1 (Introduction)

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:19 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi Jason, people,
>
>
Hi Bruno,

Thank you for this. I've been trying to digest it over the past few days.


>
> I will send my post on the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness later.
> It is too long.
>
> So, let us proceed with the combinators.
>
> Two seconds of historical motivation. During the crisis in set theory,
> Moses Schoenfinkel publishes, in 1924, an attempt to found mathematics on
> only functions. But he did not consider the functions as defined by their
> behaviour (or input-output) but more as rules to follow.
>
> He considered also only functions of one variable, and wrote (f x) instead
> of the usual f(x).
>
> The idea is that a binary function like (x + y) when given the input 4,
> say, and other inputs, will just remains patient, instead of insulting the
> user, and so to compute 4+5 you just give 5 (+ 4), that is you compute
>  ((+ 4) 5). (+ 4) will be an object computing the function 4 + x.
>
>
> The composition of f and g on x is thus written  (f (g x)), and a
> combinator should be some function B able on f, g and x to give (f (g x)).
>
> Bfgx = f(gx), for example.
>

So am I correct to say a combinator "B" is a function taking a single input
"fgx", but is itself capable of parsing the inputs and evaluating them as
functions?


>
> When I said that Shoenfinkel considered only functions, I meant it
> literally, and he accepts that a function applies to any other functions,
> so (f f) is permitted. Here (f f) is f applied to itself.
>

So are input and output values themselves considered as functions, with
fixed values just being identities which return themselves?


>
> A first question was about the existence of a finite set of combinators
> capable of giving all possible combinators, noting that a combinators
> combine. Shoenfinkel will find that it is the case, and provide the S and K
> combinators, for this. I will prove this later.
>
> A second question will be, can the SK-combinators compute all partial
> computable functions from N to N, and thus all total computable functions?
> The answer is yes. That has been proved by Curry, I think.
>
> OK? (Infinitely more could be said here, but let us give the mathematical
> definition of the SK-combinators:
>
> K is a combinator.
> S is a combinator.
> If x and y are combinator, then (x y) is a combinator.
>
> That is, is combinator is S, or K or a combination of S and K.
>
> So, the syntaxe is very easy, although there will be some problem with the
> parentheses which will justified a convention/simplifcation.
>
> Example of combinators.
>
> Well, K and S, and their combinations, (K K), (K S), (S K), (S S), and the
> (K ( K K)) and ((K K) K), and (K (K S)) and …… (((S (K S)) K) etc.
>
> I directly introduce an abbreviation to avoid too many parentheses. As all
> combinator is a function with one argument, I suppress *all* parentheses
> starting from the left:
> The enumeration above is then:  K, S, KK, KS, SK, K(KK), KKK, K(SK) and …
> S(KS)K ...
>
> So aaa(bbb) will be an abbreviation for (  ((a a) a) ((b b) b) ). It means
> a applied on a, the result is applied on a, and that results is applied on
> .. well the same with b (a and b being some combinators).
>
>
>
> OK?
>

The syntax is a bit unfamiliar to me but I think I follow so far.


>
> Of course, they obeys some axioms, without which it would be hard to
> believe they could be
> 1) combinatorial complete (theorem 1)
> 2) Turing complete (theorem 2)
>
> What are the axioms?
>
> I write them with the abbreviation (and without, a last time!)
>
> Kxy = x
> Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
> That is all.
>
> A natural fist exercise consists in finding an identity combinator. That
> is a combinator I such that Ix = x.
>


I am having trouble translating the functions and their arguments (putting
the parenthesis back in), is this translation correct?

K(x(y)) = x
S(x(y(z))) = x(z(y(z)))



>
> Well, only Kxy can give x, and Kxy does not seem to match xz(yz), so as to
> apply axiom 2, does it? Yes, it does with y matching (Kx), or (Sx).
> (Sometime we add again some left parenthesis to better see the match.
>
> So, x = Kxy = Kx(Kx) = SKKx, and we are done! I = SKK
>
> Vérification (we would not have sent Curiosity on Mars, without testing
> the software, OK? Same with the combinators. Let us test SKK on say (KK),
> that gives SKK(KK) which gives by axiom 2 K(KK)(K(KK)) which gives (KK) =
> KK, done!
>
> Note that SKK(KK) is a non stable combinators. It is called a redex. It is
> triggered by the axiom 2. The same for KKK, which gives K. A combinators
> which remains stable, and contains no redex, is said to be in normal form.
> As you can guess, the price of Turing universality is that some combinators
> will have no normal form, and begin infinite computatutions. A computation,
> here, is a sequence of applications of the two axioms above. It can be
> proved that if a combinators has a normal form exist, all computations with
> evaluation 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Aug 2018, at 19:24, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >>The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds 
> >>violates the know laws of physics
> 
> 
> >FTL influences violate any minimally realist account of Special Relativity.
> 
> Yes but that doesn't matter because it doesn't violate Einstein's greatest 
> achievement General Relativity, the improved and far more comprehensive 
> Relativity theory he came up with 10 years after Special Relativity.


I suggest you read Maudlin’s book “Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity”. It 
explains that all the troubles coming from Bell’s inequality violation are made 
worse when we go from Special Relavity to General relativity.
(And it explains also that Everett or its many-mind version remains a local 
theory). He admit at the end of the book that he made the obvious implicit 
assumption of “definite outcome for measurement” all along, but that non 
collapse in a non Bohmian context reintroduce non-locality, but for some 
reason, he disllike the MW. Yet, like his paper in philosophy of mind 
illustrates, he opts (like Bohm) for a non mechanist theory and defend 
materialism. He found the “movie graph paradox” independently and published in 
1989.



>  
> >It reintroduce a universal time and a notion of instantaneity which makes 
> >few sense in relativistic cosmology. There is no instrumental violation, 
> 
> There is still no way to keep 2 clocks in synchronization unless you had a 
> continuous record of how much the 2 clocks were accelerating with respect to 
> each other and what sort of gravitational field they were in, and these weird 
> quantum correlations won't help. So I agree there is no instrumental 
> violation, but time is what clocks measure and if there is no way to keep 
> distant clocks in sync that randomly accelerate and decelerate then there is 
> no universal time .   

OK.

Bruno


> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.