On 10 Dec 2013, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/10/2013 12:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/9/2013 12:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, LizR wrote:
On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Determinism is far from "well established".
> It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.
In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no
such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no
experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a
deterministic assumption should be added in.
I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is
deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse.
Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett
assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic.
I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed
emoticon here].
I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM
"follows the principle of determinism" (or something like that)
because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes
deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit
experiment does suggest the multiverse as a valid explanation,
in that any other explanation requires other principles to be
violated (causality, locality...)
I think I was attempting to position myself between John and
Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established,
but only as a result of a long and winding process of
experiment, conjecture and so on.
But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a
probabilistic theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you
expect? Among apostles of Everett there's a lot of trashing of
Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was that the classical world, where
things happened and results were recorded, was *logically* prior
to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making predictions
about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed
neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott
Aronson. I highly recommend Scott's book "Quantum Computing
Since Democritus". It's kind of heavy going in the middle, but
if you're just interested in the philosophical implications you
can skip to the last chapters. Violation of Bell's inequality
can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf
, assuming only locality.
Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible
which leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR
paradox:
1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects
That's non-local hidden variable - which is exactly what a
parallel universe is.
What is non local here?
A whole world is duplicated - including remote parts.
This will include only apparent distant associations. Splitting or
differentiation occurs at the speed of the interaction, which is light
speed, or slower. The same occurs in the UD.
Bruno
Brent
2. Measurements have more than one outcome
In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or
many-world's is true.
I agree with Jason.
Bruno
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
