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
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
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
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
On 10 May 2016, at 02:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 10/05/2016 2:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2016, at 15:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 9/05/2016 10:45 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2016, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is the case for the discussion in section 9.1.2 of
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
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,
.
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;
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,
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
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
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) =
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 for
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
On 10/05/2016 10:31 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 May 2016, at 09:00, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruno (I suppose) wrote:
But in the MWI, some work needs to be done (at least) to
convince me. I don't even find a paper on the subject, only
paper which shows that MWI
On 10 May 2016, at 09:00, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruno (I suppose) wrote:
But in the MWI, some work needs to be 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
### 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'
On 10/05/2016 5:00 pm, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote:
Bruno (I suppose) wrote:
But in the MWI, some work needs to be 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
Bruno (I suppose) wrote:
But in the MWI, some work needs to be 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
On 10/05/2016 2:22 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2016, at 15:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 9/05/2016 10:45 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2016, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is the case for the discussion in section 9.1.2 of the paper
by Brown and Timpson. Their equation (9)
On 09 May 2016, at 15:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 9/05/2016 10:45 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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:
On 9/05/2016 10:45 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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:
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:
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
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 -
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.
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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
