> On 17 Apr 2018, at 00:58, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > From: Brent Meeker < <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>meeke...@verizon.net > <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> >> On 4/15/2018 8:33 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> We have discussed this, and I have never agree with this. The singlet >>>> state (in classical non GR QM) describes at all times an infinity of >>>> combinations of experimental result. >>> >>> This is false. Even in Everettian QM there are only two possible outcomes >>> for each spin measurement: this leads to two distinct worlds for each >>> particle of the pair. Hence only 4 possible parallel universes. Where do >>> you get the idea that there are infinitely many parallel universes? This is >>> not part of Everettian QM, or any other model of QM. But even if you can >>> manufacture an infinity of universes, you still have not shown how this >>> removes the non-locality inherent in the quantum formalism. >> >> Bruno's ontology is all possible computations, so he's already assumed >> (countably) infinite worlds. When there are only four or two outcomes of an >> experiment it just means his worlds are divided into four or two equivalent >> subsets. > > That might very well be the case. But then that has absolutely nothing to do > with Everett or quantum mechanics. Bruno's long-held claim is that Everett's > many worlds obviate the need for non-locality. But he has never been able to > produce a coherent argument to this effect. It is always this bullshit about > an infinite number of worlds -- as if that made any difference at all.
You are the one making the extra-ordinary claims. I don’t say much more than maudlin on this issue in his book on Nonon-Locality: it makes no sense in the many-world. > > I think Bruno should really face up to the fact that his "comp" has not > produced any coherent quantum theory, That has nothing to do with the present discussion, where I use QM, and not comp. Then comp is not my theory: it is the one by Turing among *many* people, and the rest is just logical derivation in that theory, informal with UDA, and formal with the “machine’s interview”. If you find a mistake, or if there is something you don’t understand, just ask. But for the interview you need to know (what all logicians know, but none physicists know) that the notion of computation is an arithmetical notion. That does not mean only that we can describe the computations in arithmetic, but that arithmetic emulates, in the precise original technical sense all computations, and then if you believe that a primary physical universe can select a computation, you might try to provide an argument, as this looks like pure non Turing emulable magic. > so he should just stop making unsubstantiated claims about what his theory > does or does not say about the facts of quantum mechanics. I was NOT reasoning in the comp theory. My skepticism toward non-locality comes from the absence of any evidence, neither in theory, nor in any experimental set-up. I have not yet one paper substantiating your claim. All papers arguing for non-locality use the idea that measurement have one outcome, which never happens in QM without collapse. > If Bruno wants to make claims about Everettian QM, then he should confine > himself to that well-defined theory, That is exactly what I did. > and not keep obfuscating by referring to his own idiosyncratic ideas. Ad hominem. I take ad hominem remarks meaning “I says stupidities instead or trying to understand”. I think that, unlike Clark, you have no problem with step 3, but I guess you have a problem with step 7-8, as anyone not knowing that the notion of computation is a purely arithmetical notion. Then keep in mind that comp is metaphysics, or theology, or “philosophy-of-mind”, but made with the scientific method thanks to the fact that comp ucan use computer science to make the mind-body problem into a math problem (solved at the propositional level). 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 > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <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.
