On 9/06/2016 3:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 13:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 7/06/2016 6:57 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jun 2016, at 04:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That sounds like you actually do accept the standard concept of
non-locality in quantum mechanics! Spacelike separated particles
can interfere probabilistically without any possible interactions
(mechanistic force-field exchanges) between them: that is precisely
what is meant by non-locality in this context.
I think you have been too tied up with a mechanistic interpretation
of non-locality -- you appear to think that it necessarily involves
FTL exchange of some particle or other mechanistic influence. But
this is not necessarily the case -- we don't actually postulate
non-local hidden variables of this type because that would
represent an attempt to give a "local" account of "non-locality".
All that is involved is that the singlet state is a unity, even
though the entangled particles might be widely separated. This is
reflected in the fact that the wave function itself is
intrinsically non-local -- it is local and deterministic only in
configuration space, not in 3-dimensional physical space.
You are the one who seem to accept that such a non-locality is not
physical, but due to the internal relative FPI. If you agree there
is no FTL action in any physical realities, I guess we agree, then.
I have always been clear that no FTL mechanistic disturbance was
involved in quantum non-locality.
Oh! Sorry for having miss that. But Bell's inequality violation + the
mono-universe assumption does lead to such FTL, like Bohm hidden
variable theory does lead to either FTL or super-conspiracies.
The point is that once we eliminate the wave packet reduction, there
are no more FTL. And no collapse = MWI, with most weak and abstract
notion of worlds. Without collapse, the linearity makes the
superposition contagious to anything interacting, and that generate
the world. But the differenciation of "worlds" are like bubbles
generated at each points of the cosmos, like Malpertuis described
front waves, making each of them local, almost by definition.
You still get reduction to distinct worlds in each branch of the MWI.
You have to do some work to show that this is not equivalent (for each
observer) to a collapse.
We seems to agree on that. However, "the internal relative FPI" is
just a sequence of words that has little meaning in this context.
?
You cannot avoid them to get the report by the Alices and Bobs about
the correlation and its violation of Bell's inequality. It is the
basic mechanism in Everett's paper. I found that independently in
arithmetic (instead of a Wave equation). Indeed, with
computationalism, we have to extracted the wave from the numbers, and
by doing its through self-reference, we can distinguish the provable
from the true but non provable by the observers, leading to the
distinction, for the intensional (and Theaetetical) variants of
provability, between quanta and qualia.
Why not just accept that the observed results come from the standard
evolution of the wave function, so the observed non-locality is just
a property of the wave function -- no mystery or magical FPI about it
at all.
As I said, and insist, you need it for Bob and Alice, and anyone,
actually, to just talk about results of measurement. Like you need the
Helsinki Man opening the door and saying "Oh! I am in Moscow this times".
In other words, FPI is just the statement that Alice and Bob have to
look to find out which of the (+,+'), (+,-'), (-,+'), or (-,-') worlds
they are in. I don't think that actually adds anything significant to
the discussion.
Bruce
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
