Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Bruce Kellett
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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread 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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
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,

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread 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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread 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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
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"

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

2016-05-01 Thread John Clark
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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Bruce Kellett
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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016-05-01 Thread Jesse Mazer
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

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

2016-05-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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

Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain

2016-05-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
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