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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 6:30:34 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 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 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 17:04, 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 27/11/2017 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 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 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 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 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 5:07:03 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 27/11/2017 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 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 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

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 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 >

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 2:33:16 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:24:36 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 1:19:05 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/25/2017 9:55 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Applying deBroglie's formula, a change in p changes the wave length, and > thus the distribution on the screen. That is, the ensemble responds to > changes in the wave

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:24:36 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than collapse of the >> wf, >> ​ ​ >> your interpretation of what the SE means must be in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 1:58:35 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/25/2017 7:38 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, > wrote: > > * ​> ​>>​ ​ Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 million

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/25/2017 7:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, >wrote: * ​> ​>>​ ​ Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:24:36 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than collapse of the >> wf, >> ​ ​ >> your interpretation of what the SE means must be in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/25/2017 9:55 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: Applying deBroglie's formula, a change in p changes the wave length, and thus the distribution on the screen. That is, the ensemble responds to changes in the wave length due to interference. I therefore deduce that the wave length has a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 1:16 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > Since your conclusions seem immensely more bizarre than collapse of the wf, > ​ ​ > your interpretation of what the SE means must be in error. > It's a matter of taste I suppose. To me everything that can happen does happen

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 2:19:48 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > If the ensemble's distribution changes as a consequence of changes in the > wf, IMO there is reason to believe the wf has ontic properties. That's all > I was alleging. AG > ψ-ontology is not consistent

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 7:11:52 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 11:55:47 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, November 23, 2017

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:39:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, > wrote: > > *​>​>>​ ​Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some outcome, the 10 million other possible outcomes occur in 10 million

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 25, 2017 at 3:06:50 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am new to this list and have

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, wrote: *​>​>>​ ​Do you really think that when you pull a slot machine and get some >>> outcome, the 10 million other possible outcomes occur in 10 million other >>> universe? * >>> >> >> ​>> ​ >> ​I could be wrong but that would be my best

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:21:14 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, 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

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

hing-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 24, 2017 8:48 pm Subject: Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: I was just explaining that a measurement is any memorable interaction, which is simplest to illust

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 24, 2017 at 12:15:46 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 22:51, 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

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I was just explaining that a measurement is any memorable interaction, > which is simplest to illustrate with a tensor product of Alice (|A>)and a > simple superposition. In your notation: |A> (|UP> + |DN>) = |A> |UP>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22 Nov 2017, at 22:51, agrayson2...@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 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

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 clearly have not grasped the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 11:15:40 PM UTC, 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 >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

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 clearly have not grasped the implications of my argument. The idea that "MWI replaces all nonsensical

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

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 by one fact (many histories)" > does not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

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 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 4:58:20 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:17 PM, > wrote: > > >> *​> ​How do you distinguish LOCALITY from REALISM?* >> > > They mean different things. Locality means information can't travel faster > than light

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

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 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22 Nov 2017, at 09:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22 Nov 2017, at 04:09, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to derive

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21 Nov 2017, at 21:57, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: . ​>> ​Does non locality mean the future influences the past as Clark alleged? ​> ​No. ​"​realism plus arrow of time preservation and quantum mechanics are

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21 Nov 2017, at 06:22, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: ​ The title of this thread is about the consistency of Quantum Mechanics, but far more important than QM is the ability of ANY theory to be compatible with experimental results, and one of those

Consistency of Postulates of QM

Brent Meeker wrote: >> But Copenhagen is no better at deriving the Born Rule nor is any other >> quantum >> interpretation although Gleason's Theorem says that if the quantum wave >> function >> is related to probability then the square of the absolute valueis the >> only one that >> doesn't

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/11/2017 12:36 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: The singlet state is intrinsically non-local. I am not sure what that means, but I can imagine this could make sense in the "one-world" hypothesis,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 21/11/2017 12:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 12:43:05 PM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 7:09 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Kellett >wrote: ​> ​ it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22/11/2017 2:24 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 6:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 1:01 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 6:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 1:01 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​ > it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot > come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to > derive probabilities and the Born rule in MWI have been

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 2:48:33 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 22/11/2017 1:01 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: > >>> On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > No, it seems that

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22/11/2017 1:01 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 5:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to derive

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22/11/2017 12:06 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to derive probabilities and the Born rule in MWI have been

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 2:36 PM, John Clark wrote: It certainly seems to me, and Maudlin gave me no reason to think otherwise, that if things are not realistic, if a photon is neither horizontally nor vertically polarized until I measure it, if things don't fully exist till I observe it them ​,​ then

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/21/2017 4:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: No, it seems that for Maudlin MWi is essentially incoherent because it cannot come to grips with a sensible account of probabilities. All attempts to derive probabilities and the Born rule in MWI have been shown to be circular. Maudlin talks a

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

The Leggett–Garg inequality is a form of the Bell inequality as the CHSH inequality. I would say that determinism and locality are related concepts. The two are joined sets with an overlap. It would be interesting to examine this. LC On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-6, John

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 22/11/2017 9:36 am, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Bruce Kellett >wrote: ​ >> ​ AT LEAST one of the following properties of that theory must be untrue: 1) Determinism 2)

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > ​>> ​ >> AT LEAST one of the following properties of that theory must be untrue: >> 1) Determinism >> 2) Locality >> 3) Realism > > > ​> ​ > You have repeated this claim several times, John, but it is not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: . >> ​>> ​ >> Does non locality mean the future influences the past as Clark alleged? > > > ​> ​ > No. > *​"​realism plus arrow of time preservation and quantum mechanics are not compatible. In other words,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 20 Nov 2017, at 20:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 6:56:52 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Nov 2017, at 21:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:17:25 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/18/2017 8:58 AM, John Clark wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/20/2017 10:36 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I meant it as you say. Does non locality mean the future influences the past as Clark alleged? No. FTL influence between distant events A and B entails that in some reference frames A is before B and in others B is before A.  The relativity of

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:38 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > Due to the uncertainty principle, it's impossible to know the exact state > of any measuring device or any system being measured. > ​Yes that's what the uncertainty principle says, the better you know an electron's position

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21/11/2017 8:45 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 12:27 pm, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 21/11/2017 11:37 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 21 November 2017 at 08:53, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 at 12:27 pm, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 21/11/2017 11:37 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 21 November 2017 at 08:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 20/11/2017 11:42 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Sun, 19 Nov

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21/11/2017 5:24 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:50:35 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: On 21/11/2017 4:38 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:22:44 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:50:35 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On 21/11/2017 4:38 pm, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:22:44 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: >> >> On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> ​ >> The title of this thread is about the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21/11/2017 4:38 pm, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:22:44 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: ​ The title of this thread is about the consistency of Quantum Mechanics, but far more important than QM is the ability

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 20, 2017 at 10:22:44 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote: > > On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: > > > ​ > The title of this thread is about the consistency of Quantum Mechanics, > but far more important than QM is the ability of ANY theory to be > compatible with experimental

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: ​ The title of this thread is about the consistency of Quantum Mechanics, but far more important than QM is the ability of ANY theory to be compatible with experimental results, and one of those experiments shows the violation of Bell's Inequality.

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 12:46:09 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict >> exact outcomes, >> > > ​That's not the measurement problem, its

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21/11/2017 11:37 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 21 November 2017 at 08:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: On 20/11/2017 11:42 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 at 8:35 am, Bruce Kellett

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21 November 2017 at 08:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 20/11/2017 11:42 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 at 8:35 am, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 19/11/2017 12:15 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Sat, 18 Nov

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21/11/2017 12:36 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: The singlet state is intrinsically non-local. I am not sure what that means, but I can imagine this could make sense in the "one-world" hypothesis, not much in many-worlds, still less in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 21/11/2017 12:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Nov 2017, at 23:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 18/11/2017 12:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2017, at 22:10, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/15/2017 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Nov 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/14/2017 6:18

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >