Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-10 Thread agrayson2000
On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 4:01:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Aug 2018, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:32:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 9 Aug 2018, at 18:50, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 7:32:07 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:02, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 8 Aug

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:55, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-10 Thread Bruce Kellett
From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Without collapse and FTL potential, or FTL (non-local) hidden variable theory, how do you interpret the singlet state? That is actually a rather strange

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-10 Thread Bruce Kellett
From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue, because I use only Everett QM to evaluate what mechanism predicts. I might try to send a post why I do not follow your

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-10 Thread Bruce Kellett
From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave function all the way along. There are no unmatched Alices or Bobs. In each branch, I agree.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

2018-08-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 9 Aug 2018, at 12:02, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/9/2018 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> But because particle 2 is intrinsically entangled with particle 1, any >>> interaction with one particle necessarily affects the other particle. >> >> I don’t see why you say this, except