Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 11-05-2016 22:31, John Mikes wrote: BruceK and Smitra, my apologies for being obsolete and uninformed, I learned math & phsx in the very early 40s (19- that is) and did not need to refresh in my 1/2 c. of a successful R activity in specialty polymers. Since then (1987), however, I became an

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 12-05-2016 08:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: The proof of non-locality, even in a many worlds model, is immediate. Since the sequence under consideration comes from a series of quantum events it must violate the Bell inequalities. And Bell has shown that these inequalities must hold for any local

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 10 May 2016 at 02:50, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: > > Saibal Mitra: > > > And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are > already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

BruceK and Smitra,my apologies for being obsolete and uninformed, I learned math phsx in the very early 40s (19- that is) and did not need to refresh in my 1/2 c. of a successful RD activity in specialty polymers. Since then (1987), however, I became an agnostic. What reverberates now is

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 11/05/2016 11:37 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 May 2016, at 02:10, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bell's original argument didn't mention collapse, and the argument that his theorem fails because he assumed definite outcomes from measurements is actually without substance: no such assumption is

Re: Non-locality and MWI

BruceK and Smitra, my apologies for being obsolete and uninformed, I learned math & phsx in the very early 40s (19- that is) and did not need to refresh in my 1/2 c. of a successful R activity in specialty polymers. Since then (1987), however, I became an agnostic. What reverberates now is that

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Following the above reasoning MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory) should violate the locality condition. I doubt this, but if you find a proof, in the literature (or not), I am interested. As I explained, and also give references, it seems to me that the MWI restores both 3p

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Bruce: I came across the following brief statement by Goldstein et al: Many-worlds and relational interpretations of quantum theory [etc.] # Adrian Kent writes: "Making scientific sense of Everett’s idea is difficult, as evidenced by the many and generally incompatible attempts to show

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

s that MWI is local (some more rigorous than other). Do you have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would like to take a look on it, if it exists. I have not seen anything published along these lines. That does not mean that n

Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 11/05/2016 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 May 2016, at 15:37, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Following the above reasoning MWI (if it is a truly deterministic theory) should violate the locality condition. I doubt this, but if you find a proof, in the literature (or not), I

Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 11/05/2016 2:31 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: The question is: are the probabilities, or the indeterminacies, and the non locality, phenomenological (1p) or factual (ontological, real, 3p)? QM+collapse admit factual indeterminacies (God plays dice, and there are action at a distance,

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 11-05-2016 00:39, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 11/05/2016 1:54 am, smitra wrote: On 10-05-2016 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: Non-locality was not the issue with this example of the cat in the box. All I was seeking to establish was that the observer maybe on definite branches of the wave function

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 11/05/2016 1:54 am, smitra wrote: On 10-05-2016 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: Non-locality was not the issue with this example of the cat in the box. All I was seeking to establish was that the observer maybe on definite branches of the wave function (i.e., have been "split") without knowing

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

. I think we all agree that QM-with-collapse entails a violation of Locality. The debate was for the case of the non-single value QM, that is QM-without-collapse, where all branches of the wave are kept "alive". Bruno As somebody wrote "Algebraic nonseparability entails geometric nonlocality;

Re: R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 10 May 2016, at 19:06, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Messaggio originale Da: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Data: 10/05/2016 18.31 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature) On 10 May 2016, at 15:37,

Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 10 May 2016, at 18:36, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: scerir wrote: If A and B are two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its possible value, and if Lambda are hidden

R: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Messaggio originale Da: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> Data: 10/05/2016 18.31 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature) On 10 May 2016, at 15:37, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Thanks Scerir, b

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

scerir wrote: If A and B are two wings of a typical Bell apparatus, i the observable to be measured in A and x its possible value, j is the observable to be measured in B and y its possible value, and if Lambda are hidden variables, we could write Locality Condition p_A,Lambda (x|i,j) =

Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 10 May 2016, at 15:37, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same conclusion as mine (and most people here). With the MWI, non-locality does not imply action-at-a distance. (d'Espagnat would call it non- separability). What I look

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 10-05-2016 06:04, Bruce Kellett wrote: Non-locality was not the issue with this example of the cat in the box. All I was seeking to establish was that the observer maybe on definite branches of the wave function (i.e., have been "split") without knowing about it. The wave function here is

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same conclusion as mine (and most people here). With the MWI, non-locality does not imply action-at-a distance. (d'Espagnat would call it non-separability). What I look for would be a paper which would show that in the MWI there are action

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

is local (some more rigorous than other). Do you have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would like to take a look on it, if it exists. ### W. Myrvold wrote something here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

a reference of a paper showing that Bell's inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would like to take a look on it, if it exists. ### W. Myrvold wrote something here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see ch. 0.8) Thanks Scerir, but yet again, this paper get the same

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

### W. Myrvold wrote something here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see ch. 0.8) It seems that he is saying that 'action-at-a-distance' is something that would violate the 'no-signalling theorem'

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would like to take a look on it, if it exists. ### W. Myrvold wrote something here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see ch. 0.8) It seems that he is saying that 'action

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would like to take a look on it, if it exists. ### W. Myrvold wrote something here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11654/ (see ch. 0.8) -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 10/05/2016 1:06 pm, smitra wrote: On 10-05-2016 01:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 10/05/2016 2:42 am, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 3:17 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: The idea that Alice splits further into different

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 10-05-2016 01:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 10/05/2016 2:42 am, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 3:17 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: The idea that Alice splits further into different branches according to Bob's results only

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

done (at least) to convince me. I don't even find a paper on the subject, only paper which shows that MWI is local (some more rigorous than other). Do you have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would like to take a look on it, i

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 10/05/2016 2:42 am, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 3:17 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: The idea that Alice splits further into different branches according to Bob's results only after their respective light cones overlap

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 5/9/2016 9:26 AM, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 07:37, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/8/2016 10:17 PM, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote: On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Messaggio originale Da: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> Data: 09/05/2016 18.50 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 09-05-2016 09:52, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Saibal Mitra: And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has become

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 5/9/2016 12:52 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Saibal Mitra: And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has become

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 09-05-2016 07:43, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 3:17 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: The idea that Alice splits further into different branches according to Bob's results only after their respective light cones overlap is an interpretive gloss on the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 09-05-2016 07:37, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/8/2016 10:17 PM, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote: On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment. The information about

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

don't even find a paper on the subject, only paper which shows that MWI is local (some more rigorous than other). Do you have a reference of a paper showing that Bell's inequality violation entails non locality in the MWI? I would like to take a look on it, if it exists. Many physicists just n

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

y an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and gives exactly the same results as any other interpretation. Non-locality no more kills off MWI than non-locality kills off any other interpretation, collapse or non-collapse. I have given a perfectly coherent account of non-locality within the Everett

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 09 May 2016, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 1:39 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Thanks Scerir. Very interesting. On 08 May 2016, at 09:58, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521 'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality' Authors:

Re: Non-locality and MWI

Oops, Sorry Bruce, that following mail might have been resent a second tie by error. May be you can check, my server seems to have a queer behavior. Bruno On 09 May 2016, at 14:14, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Apr 2016, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/04/2016 9:09 pm, Bruno Marchal

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 30 Apr 2016, at 02:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/04/2016 9:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2016, at 03:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 4:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2016, at 06:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 1:51 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: That's pretty much

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Saibal Mitra: > And this is the core of the disagreement, you say that the results are > already there, but in the MWI this is false. In the MWI the cat is not > either dead or alive before you open the box, the superposition has > become entangled with the environment, but both branches are

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 9/05/2016 3:17 pm, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: The idea that Alice splits further into different branches according to Bob's results only after their respective light cones overlap is an interpretive gloss on the theory (which, as already pointed out, you do not

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 5/8/2016 10:17 PM, smitra wrote: On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote: On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment. The information about the angles was not in the initial state.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 09-05-2016 03:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote: On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment. The information about the angles was not in the initial state. Sure, the dynamics of the interaction

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

On 9/05/2016 1:39 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Thanks Scerir. Very interesting. On 08 May 2016, at 09:58, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521 'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality' Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson there are

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 9/05/2016 2:58 am, smitra wrote: On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: The set-up of the experiment belies the second part of your comment. The information about the angles was not in the initial state. Sure, the dynamics of the interaction between the particles and the polarizer is

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 08-05-2016 01:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 8/05/2016 3:11 am, smitra wrote: On 07-05-2016 09:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: There is no such additional superposition in the quantum formalism, so if you are going to postulate one such, then you are talking about some different theory, not quantum

Re: Non-locality and MWI (literature)

Thanks Scerir. Very interesting. On 08 May 2016, at 09:58, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521 'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality' Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson there are several interesting points here ch. 9 -

Non-locality and MWI (literature)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03521 'Bell on Bell's theorem: The changing face of nonlocality' Authors: Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson there are several interesting points here ch. 9 - Locality in the Everett picture ch. 9.1 EPR and Bell correlations in the Everettian setting etc. etc.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 8/05/2016 3:11 am, smitra wrote: On 07-05-2016 09:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: There is no such additional superposition in the quantum formalism, so if you are going to postulate one such, then you are talking about some different theory, not quantum mechanics. If you have a problem with

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 07-05-2016 09:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 7/05/2016 4:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2016 10:51 PM, smitra wrote: On 07-05-2016 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: The use of the relative orientation angle theta is intrinsically non-local. That angle cannot be obtained by local means in the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 07-05-2016 08:28, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2016 10:51 PM, smitra wrote: On 07-05-2016 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: The use of the relative orientation angle theta is intrinsically non-local. That angle cannot be obtained by local means in the above derivation. The equation for |psi>

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 7/05/2016 4:28 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/6/2016 10:51 PM, smitra wrote: On 07-05-2016 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: The use of the relative orientation angle theta is intrinsically non-local. That angle cannot be obtained by local means in the above derivation. The equation for |psi>

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 5/6/2016 10:51 PM, smitra wrote: On 07-05-2016 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: The use of the relative orientation angle theta is intrinsically non-local. That angle cannot be obtained by local means in the above derivation. The equation for |psi> derived above shows the full coherent wave

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 07-05-2016 02:36, Bruce Kellett wrote: The use of the relative orientation angle theta is intrinsically non-local. That angle cannot be obtained by local means in the above derivation. The equation for |psi> derived above shows the full coherent wave function as evolved from the initial

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 7/05/2016 2:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2016, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: There is a widely cited paper by Tipler (arxiv:quant-ph/0003146v1) that claims to show the MWI does away with non-locality. I read it a long time ago, but I have stopped to believe that MWI can be

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 7/05/2016 2:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 May 2016, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: But this does not work, as Feynman and Everett already explained with the double slit. In "Fabric of Reality" David Deutsch made it even clearer using for slits. You are confusing the Feynman paths of

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

>Interesting, but my schedule makes it hard for me to analyse this just >now. Now, if you think you can argue for non-locality from Renninger >type of measurement, don't hesitate to show us. Here the point was >just that the violation of Bell's inequality does not lead to non- >local

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 06 May 2016, at 01:13, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/05/2016 10:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 May 2016, at 01:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: This is where your fascination with the 1p-3p notion gets you into trouble. If the third person view (3p) means anything at all, it means simple

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 05 May 2016, at 22:40, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/5/2016 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I will at the positive aspect. You seem to agree with the computationalist FPI. That is a progress. Now just reread Everett. Pure state evolves in pure state, and never becomes mixture in the MW.

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 05 May 2016, at 19:43, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Bruno writes: Alice * (up + down) = Alice * up + Alice * down. If Alice look, as many times as she want at the up/down state of the particle, she will find up (and always up) *and* down and always down. The reason is that once she

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 5/05/2016 10:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 May 2016, at 01:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: This is where your fascination with the 1p-3p notion gets you into trouble. If the third person view (3p) means anything at all, it means simple intersubjective agreement. The third person is one who

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 5/5/2016 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I will at the positive aspect. You seem to agree with the computationalist FPI. That is a progress. Now just reread Everett. Pure state evolves in pure state, and never becomes mixture in the MW. The third person view is given by the wave or matric

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Bruno writes: Alice * (up + down) = Alice * up + Alice * down. If Alice look, as many times as she want at the up/down state of the particle, she will find up (and always up) *and* down and always down. The reason is that once she find up, Alice becomes Alice-up, and that state does no more

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 05 May 2016, at 01:31, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 5/05/2016 5:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2016, at 01:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/05/2016 3:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2016, at 00:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/05/2016 1:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2016, at

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 5/05/2016 5:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 May 2016, at 01:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/05/2016 3:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2016, at 00:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/05/2016 1:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2016, at 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/05/2016 3:15 pm,

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 04 May 2016, at 01:25, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 4/05/2016 3:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2016, at 00:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/05/2016 1:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2016, at 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/05/2016 3:15 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, May 2, 2016 at

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 4/05/2016 3:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 May 2016, at 00:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/05/2016 1:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2016, at 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/05/2016 3:15 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Bruce Kellett

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 03 May 2016, at 00:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 3/05/2016 1:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2016, at 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 3/05/2016 1:49 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 May 2016, at 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 02 May 2016, at 06:13, 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, Bruce Kellett

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 02 May 2016, at 07:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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

Re: Non-locality and MWI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: Non-locality and MWI

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

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: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: ​> ​ > Baez's crackpot index is good fun, but it does have some amusing side > effects: > 37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no > concrete testable predictions. > does seem to do

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 29/04/2016 9:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2016, at 03:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 4:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2016, at 06:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 1:51 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: That's pretty much the many-universes model that Bruno proposes. But

Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Apr 29, 2016 8:19 am Subject: Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI On 29 Apr 2016, at 09:41, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Da: spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@g

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

9 am Subject: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI On 29 Apr 2016, at 04:16, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 29 April 2016 at 07:27, spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: Hah! Well somebody will get rich of we take the Everett stuff as fact. Not lik

Re: R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 29 Apr 2016, at 09:41, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: Da: spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Data: 28/04/2016 21.46 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI Is there any practical technical use for MW

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 29 Apr 2016, at 04:16, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 29 April 2016 at 07:27, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Hah! Well somebody will get rich of we take the Everett stuff as fact. Not likely myself for all this. Sincerely, Your humble clone

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

- From: Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 10:17 pm Subject: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI On 29 April 2016 at 07:27, spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 28 Apr 2016, at 03:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 4:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2016, at 06:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 1:51 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: That's pretty much the many-universes model that Bruno proposes. But it's non-local in the sense that the

R: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Da: spudboy100 via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Data: 28/04/2016 21.46 A: <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Ogg: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI Is there any practical technical use for MWI as applied science. Just asking? Dunno. Quantum compu

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 29 April 2016 at 07:27, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Hah! Well somebody will get rich of we take the Everett stuff as fact. Not > likely myself for all this. > > Sincerely, > Your humble clone > Kill off the poor ones and then you're sure to be

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

2016 5:17 pm Subject: Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI You can try quantum suicide to get rich (c.f. "Schrondinger'sRabbits" by Colin Bruce). Brent On 4/28/2016 12:46 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Is there anypractical technical

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 3:24 pm Subject: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI BTW. Frank Wilczek: 'Entanglement Made Simple' Quantum entanglement is thought to be one of the trickie

Re: R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

Is there any practical technical use for MWI as applied science. Just asking? -Original Message- From: 'scerir' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 3:24 pm Subject: R: Re:

R: Re: Non-locality and MWI

BTW. Frank Wilczek: 'Entanglement Made Simple' Quantum entanglement is thought to be one of the trickiest concepts in science, but the core issues are simple. And once understood, entanglement opens up a richer understanding of concepts such as the “many worlds” of quantum theory.

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27/04/2016 4:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2016, at 06:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 1:51 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: That's pretty much the many-universes model that Bruno proposes. But it's non-local in the sense that the "matching scheme" must take account of which

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27/04/2016 5:24 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: (Read a bunch of physicists getting philosophical about what their field is all about, and you'll find it's a very widely-held sentiment that physics is generally not be concerned with non-mathematical explanations for physical laws--the

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On 27/04/2016 4:13 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47

Re: Non-locality and MWI

On 27 Apr 2016, at 08:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 4:13 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/04/2016 3:22 pm, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Bruce Kellett

  1   2   >