On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:27 AM, <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 11:07:09 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 31 Aug 2016, at 20:30, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 30 Aug 2016, at 18:23, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:10:41 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/06/2016 3:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> > On 10 Jun 2016, at 03:02, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> >> On 10/06/2016 1:41 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>> On 09 Jun 2016, at 01:28, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> You have yet to prove that -- assertion is not proof. >>>> > >>>> > By defining world by "closed for interaction", locality follows from >>>> > linearity. >>>> >>>> Bruno, you specialize in these oracular pronouncements that mean >>>> absolutely nothing. >>> >>> >>> >>> This is just insulting, and add nothing but confusion. >>> >>> Avoid ad hominem patronizing tone and focus on what you do not >>> understand or disagree with. >>> >>> >>> >>> "locality follows from linearity" -- what a load of >>>> total nonsense. >>>> >>> >>> >>> OK, I was quick there, but I provided more details in *many* other >>> posts. Please read most of a thread, not just a a sentence here and there >>> and then adding to the prejudices. >>> >>> To be slightly less short, and explain, I was talking in the frame of >>> the non collapse formulation of QM, and I was just saying that without any >>> collapse, the linearity of the tensor product with the linearity of the SWE >>> ensure that at any time everything is local, even computable, in the global >>> third person picture. >>> >>> Basically, "physical non locality" needs to put some amount of 3p sense >>> in the collapse of the wave, where in the MWI (and in arithmetic) the >>> indeterminacies and the non local appearances are purely epistemic (first >>> person or first person plural). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> > There are 1p statistical interference, but Bell's inequality >>>> violation >>>> > is accounted without FTL, which is not the case with collapse, or >>>> > Bohmian particules. >>>> > I gave the proof with others, and eventually you admitted that there >>>> > was no real action at a distance. But with one world, those are real >>>> > action at a distance. So I think the point has been made. >>>> >>>> There is no FTL mechanism in action in one world or many: Bell >>>> non-locality obeys the no-signalling theorem. You have to get over >>>> thinking that non-locality means FTL action. >>>> >>> >>> Here's an article of interest. FWIW, I don't believe the no-signalling >>> theorem puts this issue >>> to rest. AG >>> >>> >>> In all the thread we (me and Bruce) were agreeing with this, >>> >> >> I haven't read every post in this thread, but from Bruce's remark above, >> he apparently believes that you believe in FTL transmission of information, >> and that since the no-signal theorem denies that, your claim (or any claim >> of FTL transmission) is falsified. >> >> >> >> Guess what, you were completely wrong. >> >> I was the one who denies the FTL. >> > > *My text may have confused you. I thought you went to the MWI to deny FTL > in this one-world. That's what I meant. But Bruce seems to deny FTL in this > world, by saying the phenomenon is just a property of the wf, and in his > appeal to the no-signalling theorem; as if to say, if you can't send > information, there can't be FTL. But here "send information" in the context > of no-signalling theorem just means you can't send a message of choice. AG * > > *What does FPI stand for? TIA, AG* > >> >> The article I posted denies that the apparent contradiction between >> relativity and non locality can be resolved simply by appealing to the >> non-signalling theorem, which Bruce seems to assert. >> >> >> I was the one asserting that with the MWI, even the Bell's violation does >> not force FTL, even without signalling possible. >> >> My point, shared by others in the thread, was that with the MWI restores >> both 3p determinacy, and 3p locality. The point of Clark and Bruce is that >> even with the MWI, Bell's inequality violation proves that nature is 3p non >> local, and that action at a distance exists. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can only go by his words. So I don't see that the article I posted is >> irrelevant to the discussion. AG >> >> >> It was Bruce who claims that Bell's inequality violation shows that FTL >> exists, even without possible signalling. >> > > *Then why does he tell you to "get over it", it being FTL? AG* >
*Maybe he means that FTL exists in this world, so why resort to the MWI to deny it. But then why does he bring up the no-signalling theorem? AG * > > >> I agree that FTL (fast than light influence which not necessarily >> exploitable for transmission of information) still exist, and I agree that >> it is logically possible, but people believing in that have the obligation >> to give evidence, and my point is that in the MWI, Bell's violation is no >> more an evidence, as Bell supposes definite outcomes in definite realties, >> which makes no sense in the MWI, nor in computationalism more generally. >> > > *I tend to agree that Bell's results assume one world. AG * > >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >>> The question was specifically about some possible remnant of physical >>> action at a distance in the MWI. We both know that the non signaling does >>> not put light on this. Genuine physical action at a distance obviously >>> exist in the QM-with-collapse, by Bell's inequality violation, but Bell's >>> argument does not show action at a distance( in any unique branch if that >>> exist), in the MWI. >>> >>> What we have is the contagion of superposition, and they never go >>> quicker than interaction, that is at sub-speed of light. >>> >>> And that is why we can define, or represent the "world" by set of >>> space-time events closed for interaction. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/FQXi_v2.pdf >>> >>> >>> Interesting (but out of topic indeed). >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> That adds nothing, indeed. That shows only that the paradoxes came >>>> >>> only from the axioms some have added to fit their philosophical >>>> >>> prejudices. >>>> >> >>>> >> So you add axioms to suit your philosophical prejudices just as >>>> >> others do -- how does that make your position any better than that >>>> of >>>> >> others? >>>> > >>>> > No. I subtract axioms. >>>> > >>>> > Bohr's axioms: SWE + COLLAPSE + number (add,mult) (+ >>>> > unintelligible theory of mind) >>>> > >>>> > Everett's axioms SWE + Number (add,mult). (+ mechanist theory >>>> of >>>> > mind) >>>> > >>>> > Your servitor's axioms: Number(add,mult). (+ mechanist theory >>>> > of mind) >>>> > >>>> > And I don't pretend that is true, only that digital mechanism makes >>>> > this necessary and testable (modulo the usual "malin génies"). >>>> >>>> All the above sets of axioms lead to non-local theories. You may claim >>>> just to subtract axioms, but that is as much choosing your axioms as >>>> any >>>> other procedure. And you have yet to show that you get the physics of >>>> this world out of your theory --and demonstrate the necessary stability >>>> of the physics. Just wishing evil genies away does not actually banish >>>> them. >>>> >>>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/everything-list/SJdbZNPRALg/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- 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.
