On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:40:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 May 2018, at 20:35, agrays...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 1:58:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 May 2018, at 05:46, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:12:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 2 May 2018, at 10:53, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 3:36:31 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Apr 2018, at 08:21, 'scerir' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > IMO Schroedinger invented this manyworlds or manyminds or manywords > interpretation. > > > The quote below seems to indicate that this is not the case, unless you > agree (with me, and Deutsch, …) that QM *is* the discovery of the many > superposed worlds/states/minds, and that the founder added the collapse > postulate ONLY to avoid the proliferation of the alternate > worlds/states/minds. Everett is just the guy who realise that the MW does > not leads to a jelly quagmire of everything, by taking the first person > view (what he called subjective) of the observers, as their memories get as > much quasi orthogonal that the results they could have attributed to a > collapse. The collapse, and the irreversibility is purely “subjective” > (first person) and irreversible in principle for *us*. To reverse the > entire universal wave, we would need to go outside the physical universe in > some practical way, which, needless to say, is rather difficult. > > But I do agree with you, Schroedinger and Einstein understood that the > collapse was a problem for the rest of physics and philosophy. They were > rightly skeptical that Bohr and Heisenberg got the whole thing. Would have > they like Everett? Bohr just threw Everett out of his home, I have read > somewhere. I think Einstein would have prefer it to anything involving an > action at a distance, like Bohm’s theory (non local hidden variable > theory). Indeed, as you all know, Einstein told that he would have prefered > to be a plumber than be involved in a theory with some action-at-a distance. > > Bruno > > > Relativity affirms action at a distance. > > > ? > > Relativity is born with Einstein trying, and succeeding, to eliminate the > action at a distance in Newton’s theory of gravitation, and in Maxwell ’s > theory of electromagnetism. > > > *Wrong. Completely wrong. Ever hear of the light cone in relativity? * > > > Well, yes of course. > > > > *Light-like events are causally connected, which MEANS action at a > distance, * > > > ? > > It means on the contrary that in the cone, we can have causal connection, > because they don’t need going faster than light. It means NO action at a > distance. > > > > > *whereas space-like events are not.* > > > Which means no action at a distance (and that is why the EPR-BELL-Aspect > theory and experience is astonishing. The Debate here was about the idea > that with the MW theory, we keep the non-locality and Bell’s violation > appearance in single branche, but that by looking at the entire wave, we > see that is a subjective phenomenon. > > > > * Relativity, and E&M after being modified by Einstein, affirm action at a > distance. * > > > Einstein said, after EPR, that if an action at a distance was physically > real, he would have prefer to be a plumber instead of a physicists ever > related to such magic, that he qualified as spooky. > > > *You're confused. * > > > Avoid ad hominem remark, please. > > > > *By SPOOKY action at a distance, Einstein was referring to INSTANTANEOUS > action at a distance.* > > > > By “action at a distance” we have always mean here the spooky one, which > are the one that Aspect experience imposes on any mono-universe theory. > Everyone agreed on this (what is sometimes debated is that such spooky > action at a distance exists in a many-universe view). >
*You're confusing the issue with your home-grown definitions. Notice what Einstein said: "SPOOKY action at a distance". What is SPOOKY? INSTANTANEOUS is SPOOKY. ERGO, spooky action at a distance MEANS instantaneous action at a distance. AG* > * In relativity and E&M, there is action at light speed, but not > instantaneously. This is action at a distance but not spooky because NOT > instantaneously. * > > > > No one ever doubted this. You are the one coming up with “action at a > distance” being the usual local one, which introduced the confusion. We > would not talk of action AT a distance, if they were not instantaneous. > That is what all Bell’s inequality violation or not is all about. > > Bruno > > > > > *AG * > > > Relativity, and I would say Everett (non collapse) saves physics from > action at a distance. Even Newton knew quickly that his law of gravitation > was dubious, because it evolves action at a distance. SR and GR don’t, nor, > Imo, the relative state of QM without collapse. > > > > > *Newton's gravity theory has instantaneous action at a distance.* > > > OK. > > > > * It was modified in the form of GR, which allows for action at a distance > at the speed of light.* > > > That is not what we call “action at a distance”. If the action take the > speed of light or below, it is a un unproblematic propagation, at a > distance, only. > > > > > * Classical E&M allowed for fields and actions to propagate at the SoL, > but not instantaneously. You speculate authoritatively on the nature of the > Cosmos but have little to no knowledge of basic physics. AG * > > > > I have no clue which speculation you are talking about, and in this case, > you are the one confusing action-at-a-distance with action at light speed > or below, which would make this entire thread spurious. > > You might also try to use reason instead of showing emotion and using ad > hominem patronising tone which is only a sort of insult, which I take as > lack of argument. > > > Bruno > > > > > > > > Einstein found physical indeterminacy, and physical action at a distance > making no sense at all. But with the MW theory, neither the indeterminacy, > nor the “action-at-distance” are physical. They are only local appearances. > (Like we expect with digital mechanism). > > My sense is that Einstein would have found the MWI "repellent" (to quote > Weinberg). > > > Plausiby. But I guess Einstein would have found the MW far less > conceptually repellent than physical action at a distance. > > He would have found it excessively ornate, > > Or excessively elegant. Somehow, Everett is to Copenhagen what General > relativity is to special direction, albeit in epistemological direction. > > Everett is just the preceding theory (Copenhagen , that > Schroedinger/Dirac/etc. equation + collapse (and a strange dualist > theory)), where Everett is just taking Schroedinger equation seriously. > > And then Everett confirmed the consequence of an even simpler theory, > which is actually a theorem already of Peano Arithmetic. The theory that > there is a universal machine. Now it is a theorem that all universal > machine dreams that they are all universal machine, and they define a > “consciousness flux” which differentiate into consistent, sound and > unsound, theories and experiments, and first person experience, justifying, > testable, the core of all geographical histories, the physical laws. > > Why add a collapse axiom? To satisfy the ego to be unique? The > “many-world” is only the wave equation, or the Heisenberg matrices, with an > internal relative states interpretation, which requires only the Gleason > measure. > > or to quote Nietzsche when discussing Christianity, "rococo". AG > > > > Which Christianity? Hypatia, who taught Plotinus Neoplatonism and > Diophantus' Mathematics in Alexandria was confronted, at about +400, with > two types of Christians. The educated one, knowing about Plato and > discussing theology, and well versed in mathematics (which was a > prerequisite in theology) and then a growing number of literalist radicals. > Yet the emperor Constantin, who will convert to christianism is still an > open minded christian, tempering the authoritarian *blasphemy*. It will > take Justinian to call “pagan” or “heretic” (I think) the non confessional > theologian, basically forbidding theology to science, and science to > theology, enforcing their separation. It is normal that the most > fundamental science get stolen by authoritarian powers (by definition: the > original question was not much more than is mathematics or physics o > > ... -- 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.
