On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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.
By the FPI, that is a phenomenological collapse. The work is done by
Everett already. except that he did not realize that, by using
mechanism, there is no choice than to derive the universal wave or
universal matrix from elementary arithmetic. But then he was not
working on the mind-body problem and get the aristotelian prejudices
which are widespread (and dogmatic). But the FPI explains why there is
apparent collapse without collapse (Everett), and why there is an
apparent wave with only number.
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.
That eliminates the physical spooky action at a distance which are
necessarily there in QM+collapse.
That adds nothing, indeed. That shows only that the paradoxes came
only from the axioms some have added to fit their philosophical
prejudices.
Bruno
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.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
