On 24 Nov 2017, at 00:15, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 9:37:48 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Nov 2017, at 23:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
You clearly have not grasped the implications of my argument. The
idea that "MWI replaces all nonsensical weirdness by one fact (many
histories)" does not work, and is not really an explanation at all
-- you are simply evading the issue.
Without collapse, the apparent correlations are explained by the
linear evolution, and the linear tensor products only. I have not
yet seen one proof that some action at a distance are at play in
quantum mechanics, although I agree that would be the case if the
outcome where unique, as EPER/BELL show convincingly.
Aspect experience was a shock for many, because they find action at
a distance astonishing, but are unaware of the many-worlds, or just
want to dismiss it directly as pure science fiction. But after
Aspect, the choice is really between deterministic and local QM +
many worlds, or one world and 3p indeterminacy and non locality.
Like Maudlin said, choose your poison.
Bruno
Bruce
I am new to this list and have not followed all the arguments here.
In weighing in here I might be making an error of not addressing
things properly.
Consider quantum entanglements, say the entanglements of two spin
1/2 particles. In the singlet state |+>|-> + |->|+> we really do not
have the two spin particles. The entanglement state is all that is
identifiable. The degrees of freedom for the two spins are replaced
with those of the entanglement state. It really makes no sense to
talk about the individual spin particles existing. If the observer
makes a measurement that results in a measurement the entanglement
state is "violently" lost, the entanglement phase is transmitted to
the needle states of the apparatus, and the individual spin degrees
of freedom replace the entanglement.
We have some trouble understanding this, for the decoherence of the
entangled state occurs with that state as a "unit;" it is blind to
any idea there is some "geography" associated with the individual
spins. There in fact really is no such thing as the individual
spins. The loss of the entangled state replaces that with the two
spin states. Since there is no "metric" specifying where the spins
are before the measurement there is no sense to ideas of any causal
action that ties the two resulting spins.
I agree. But we can trace out locally the prediction possible, and
this explains locally the results in the MW view, not so in the mono-
universe view which requires some (incomprehensible) action at a
distance. That is why I took the Aspect confirmation that QM violate
Bell's inequality (well the CHSH's one) as a confirmation of the
physical existence of the parallel computations/worlds, and not of
action at a distance.
This chaffs our idea of physical causality, but this is because we
are thinking in classical terms. There are two ways of thinking
about our problem with understanding whether quantum mechanics is
ontic or epistemic. It could be that we are a bit like dogs with
respect to the quantum world. I have several dogs and one thing that
is clear is they do not understand spatial relationships well; they
get leashes and chains all tangled up and if they get wrapped up
around a pole they simply can't figure out how to get out of it. In
this sense we human are simply limited in brain power and will never
be able to understand QM in some way that has a completeness with
respect to causality, reality and nonlocality. There is also a far
more radical possibility. It is that a measurement of a quantum
system is ultimately a set of quantum states that are encoding
information about quantum states. This is the a quantum form of
Turing's Universal Turing Machine that emulates other Turing
machines, or a sort of Goedel self-referential process. If this is
the case we may be faced with the prospect there can't ever be a
complete understanding of the ontic and epistemic nature of quantum
mechanics. It is in some sense not knowable by any axiomatic
structure.
I agree and much more can be said. In fact quantum weirdness can be
proved to be a consequence of Mechanism (informally with some thought
experience), and formally with the Gödel-Löb-Solovay theory of self-
reference (which is *the* theory provided by the universal machine
itself when looking inward deep enough.
I can give you references if you are interested. And yes, it is
radical ... for Aristotelian materialists, which believes that physics
*is* metaphysics. The arithmetical explanation of the quantum is of
course rather natural for platonic Pythagorean people. What is nice,
is that the Gödel-Löb logics explains also the quanta as the sharable
part of a more general consciousness or qualia theory. You might look
at:
Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body
problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
International System Administration and Network Engineering
Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004. Available here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
Bruno
LC
--
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.
