On 2/05/2016 3:31 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
On 2/05/2016 1:31 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett
On 2/05/2016 3:15 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
No, I disagree. The setting *b* has no effect on what happens at a
remote location is sufficiently precise to encapsulate
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 2/05/2016 1:31 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM,
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>
> No, I disagree. The setting *b* has no effect on what happens at a remote
> location is sufficiently precise to encapsulate exactly what physicists
> mean by locality. In quantum field theory, this is
On 2/05/2016 1:31 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett
On 2/05/2016 1:31 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
>> That is a semantic matter. There is a problem if one insists that
>> "non-local"
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
>> If it's physical then if it is of a large enough magnitude it can impact
>> one of the senses without any intermediary.
>
>
> >
> And how you define "senses"?
>
And
now
ladies and gentlemen
it's time
On 2/05/2016 7:52 am, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
That is a semantic matter. There is a problem if one insists that
"non-local" means the propagation of a real physical influence
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>
> That is a semantic matter. There is a problem if one insists that
> "non-local" means the propagation of a real physical influence (particle of
> wave) faster-than-light. But "non-locality" in standard quantum
On 30 Apr 2016, at 06:46, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 a John Mikes wrote:
> Bruno: do you have a good definition you could use for
"physical"?
If it's physical then if it is of a large enough magnitude it can
impact one of the senses without any
On 29 Apr 2016, at 22:25, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno: do you have a good definition you could use for "physical"?
(I mean: beyond what science calls physics in physical sciences).
*
In my agnostic mind whatever might be included into - even - some
thinking of potentially imaginable
12 matches
Mail list logo