> On 17 Apr 2018, at 12:47, Lawrence Crowell <goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 5:58:05 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > From: Brent Meeker < <javascript:>meek...@verizon.net <javascript:>> >> 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. > > I think Bruno should really face up to the fact that his "comp" has not > produced any coherent quantum theory, so he should just stop making > unsubstantiated claims about what his theory does or does not say about the > facts of quantum mechanics. If Bruno wants to make claims about Everettian > QM, then he should confine himself to that well-defined theory, and not keep > obfuscating by referring to his own idiosyncratic ideas. > > Bruce > > Quantum mechanics is not built up from anything else. It is probably > irreducible and in some ways at the deepest foundations.
Of course I disagree with this, although that I tend to agree, if we limit ourself to physics. But serious metaphysics, when we assume Mechanism in cognitive science, makes obligatory to derive QM from the statistics on first person experience on all computations. Then the logic we obtained justifies the existence of interference and of a unique measure, up to now. The idea that physics is the fundamental science *is* Aristotle metaphysical assumption, and if you read my papers or posts you might understand that Aristotle Metaphysics (materialism) is incompatible with Mechanism (but *many* confuses them both). 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 > <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.
