Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Brent Meeker
On 4/19/2016 10:21 PM, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

2016-04-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 20 Apr 2016, at 00:12, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ ​> ​"is" in which sense? ​"​sense" in which sense? ​You must be a fan of Bill Clinton who notoriously said in answer to a question in a legal deposition: ​ "It

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Bruce Kellett
On 20/04/2016 3:21 pm, smitra wrote: On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread smitra
On 20-04-2016 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have said to have made any

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Bruce Kellett
On 20/04/2016 6:56 am, smitra wrote: The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have said to have made any definite choices at all. I think you need

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Bruce Kellett
On 20/04/2016 7:05 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

2016-04-19 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ > ​> ​ > "is" in which sense? > ​"​sense" in which sense? ​You must be a fan of Bill Clinton who notoriously said in answer to a question in a legal deposition: ​ "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' i

Aharanov-Bohm non-locality is an artifact of invoking classical potentials

2016-04-19 Thread smitra
The real world is quantum-mechanical, no classical. At the macroscopic level, quantum mechanics does not become equivalent to classical physics at all (there is no way an infinite dimensional Hilbert space will somehow reduce to a classical phase space), what happens is that the results of

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 19/04/2016 10:23 am, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> >> The local mathematical rule in this case, say for observer A, is that >>

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread smitra
The mistake made is to invoke classical reasoning after the measurements are made. If the choice for the orientation of the polarizers were not made in advance, then Alice and Bob cannot have said to have made any definite choices at all. In some particular sector where Alice made some

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

2016-04-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 18 Apr 2016, at 01:37, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote: . ​>> ​​It's not just that you don't have to, you CAN'T do ​ theoretical physics​ from a viewpoint that CAN NOT EXIST because the result would be ridiculous and useless. ​>​It does

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
Spudboy100: "Brent, to be more precise, I was thinking that every photon event staring from 1 nanosecond ago, on backwards, might still be floating around somewhere. I am wondering also if this data is accessible, in principle?" This reminds me of an old quote: "It is sufficient to destroy the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Brent Meeker
On 4/19/2016 6:00 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Brent, to be more precise, I was thinking that every photon event staring from 1 nanosecond ago, on backwards, might still be floating around somewhere. The photons may have been interacted with atoms and lost, but if QM is

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-04-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Apr 2016, at 13:10, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: BTW, surprisingly the debate about the real meaning of (the two) Bell’s theorems (locality, local causality, predetermination, predictability, separability, determinism, counterfactual definiteness, realism, etc.) is still

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Brent, to be more precise, I was thinking that every photon event staring from 1 nanosecond ago, on backwards, might still be floating around somewhere. I am wondering also if this data is accessible, in princple? Yes, the bright stuff from some quasar 5 billion years ago, but maybe also a

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-04-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Apr 2016, at 02:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 19/04/2016 12:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2016, at 09:45, Bruce Kellett wrote: Let me reduce this to simple steps: 1) MWI is an interpretation of QM only. I.e., it reproduces all the results of QM without adding any additional

Non-locality and MWI (literature)

2016-04-19 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List
BTW, surprisingly the debate about the real meaning of (the two) Bell’s theorems (locality, local causality, predetermination, predictability, separability, determinism, counterfactual definiteness, realism, etc.) is still going on ... Here is some (very short) literature J.S. Bell’s