Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:01 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > How is everything except one value in this world (the others dissipating > into the environment), WORSE than conjuring a multitude of universes for > the other values to be measured? > ​One theory makes an assumption and the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, > wrote: > > ​> ​>> ​ ​ What is your definition of non-realistic? >>> >>> ​>> ​ >>> Nonrealistic means ​when something is not being observed it

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote: ​> >>> ​>> ​ >>> ​ >>> What is your definition of non-realistic? >>> >> >> ​>> ​ >> Nonrealistic means ​when something is not being observed it doesn't exist >> in any one definite state.​ >> >> ​ >> > > ​> ​ > You have to be

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/11/2017 10:01 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/13/2017 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 5:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, wrote: * ​> ​ If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, wrote: *​> ​If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not > just assume the branches that aren't measured in this world, dissipate into > the environment as I think Decoherence theory postulates? MWI doesn't tell >

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 1:42:13 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 4:42:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> Cosmologist think the universe is spatially flat. That just means >> triangles have interior angles summing to 180deg. It doesn't have

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, > wrote: > > *​> ​If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not >> just assume the branches that aren't measured in this world, dissipate into

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote > ​ > > ​> ​ >> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI. >> > > ​ > You can't have the MWI without the Multiverse, and if there is a > Multiverse then the MWI

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote: ​> ​>> ​ ​ What is your definition

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 10:46:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote: >> >> ​> > ​>> ​ >

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote ​ >> >> ​> ​ >>> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI. >>> >> >> ​ >>

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote: On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: On

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 03:47, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: ​ ​ >> ​ That's not the

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 4:02 am, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 12 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 13/11/2017 5:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno has to rule out the worlds in which angular momentum is not conserved; he has not

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 11/13/2017 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno nor anyone else has ever

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:50:00 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM,

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno nor anyone else has ever produced a valid argument as to how many