> On 8 Oct 2019, at 13:58, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:38 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > On 6 Oct 2019, at 13:03, Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com > <mailto:bhkellet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be >> <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the >>> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world >>> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice >>> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance. >> >> >> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a >> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will >> suffice at this point. >> >> >> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to >> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin >> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the >> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI. >> >> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no >> non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just >> answer the question. >> >> >>> Well, I have looked at your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI >>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These >>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is >>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. >>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still >>> have not come up with any credible explanation. >> >> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in Tipler’s paper, and it is >> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach. >> >> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not >> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just >> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced >> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the >> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on >> what, exactly, we are talking about. > > > When Alice and Bob are separated, even from just one centimetre, then it > makes no sense to claim that they are in the same world. > > Now you are just talking nonsense, Bruno. You are trying to remove all sense > from the idea of a semi-classical world.
Keep in mind I avoid ontological commitment as I work on this. No notion of worlds is anything but obvious, except as point or local in some algebra. Alice and Bob share only the universe they can access to, and if it is easier to make the thought experiment with Bob and Alice in different galaxies, that is only accidental, and remains true for little distance. As you know, I assume only K, S, KK, … and Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz), + Mechanism, which is given by the Turing-Church-Post-Kleene thesis, and the idea that we can survive with a (physical, if that means something) body. Those axioms are enough toe drive all computation and study what the entities there can justify their observable. I came to quantum mechanics from mechanism. I don’t need evidence for the “parallel histories”, the only question for me, is “does nature conforms” to the way mechanism (+ mathematics) determines. Mechanism reduce the mind-body problem into a “measure problem” on the sigma_1 sentences. > By doing this, you remove any possibility for your physics to actually > describe our everyday experience. In the Aristotelian theology, but that is the pace the theologian are wrong, if we assume Mechanism. > Do you not meet your wife every morning? Personal experience cannot confirm or refute an ontology. Only if the physics different from the machine physics would we have an evidence for physical ontology, and evidence that Mechanism is wrong. But up to now, quantum mechanics without collapse confirms the statistics of the dream of the universal machine(s). > > Alice and Bob can a priori find non correlated results, but they will met > only their corresponding Alices and Bobs. > > OK. So prove it. Show me, in detail, how it is that non-correlated branches > can exist, but Alice and Bob never experience them. What might that mean? All > Alices meet some Bob or other, and vice versa. There are no unmatched > persons, floating in unmatched 'worlds’. That is what price and Tipler does, or that is done in term of partial trace. It is well done in the book on quantum computation by Irvinsalo. That interpretation is the one which fits with mechanism, and it is already in the Everett relative state. (And I am actually in hyper busy period, teaching all the time, + a paper to write, so even if you convince me that you really want to understand, I will not try a long thread on Everet. You are the one claiming that that are “realist” FTL in the MW. I have never seen there, and it is almost trivial by the way I intepret the wave. It is shocking, but with mechanism we are warned. > > > The “fully local explanation” is known by everybody: it is the Schroedinger > equation. If you simulate the SWE of the system Bob+Alice + their particles, > on a computer, and you interview the majority of Alice and Bob, who met after > the experiments, they will agree on the correlation, and on the violation of > Bell’s inequality, despite we know that everything was local, indeed > simulated by a Babbage machine. > > It is well known (Hmm….) In interdisciplinary domain, better to never use “it is well known" > that you cannot simulate Bell inequality violating statistics on a computer > without actually simulating the non-local state, and using quantum mechanics. Of course. The point is that if you emulate the wave function of Bob and Alice and their entangled particles, the average Bob and Alice will described the non local effect, in all their first person diaries described in the wave, and all this, without any FTL, as we see clearly for outside. > But when we do this, we can see explicitly that the correlations originate in > the non-local features of the quantum state. >From outside the computer we see that, but again, without any use of any FTL >anywhere. > The Schroedinger equation describes local unitary evolution, but when applied > to a non-local state -- a state that refers explicitly to two non-separable > spacetime locations -- then the results are non-local. The SE does not > eliminate the non-locality inherent in the quantum state. That is where we agree. No FTL, in the multiverse. Non locality in d'Espagnat sense of inseparability is no problem a priori in the many-“whatever" theories. Non locality is only a local appearance. There are Bob and Alice with uncorrlelated particles, but never on the same branches, only in the diverging decohering one relatively to each other. Exactly like when I look to the S cat, the two outputs occurs. You describe the singlet state like if it describe a finite set of universe, but the singlet state at the start describes all worlds with Alice in front of all possible accessible spin, whichever direction she decides to measure. Not sure were we disagree, but to be clear, what I say is that Violation of BI in one universe enforces FTL, but in Everett relative states, there is no FTL, just a strange first person plural notion, which fits what we can expect from the many computations that Peano arithmetic can already prove their existence. 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRziFSFpv%2BxXUqVD3%2B1HURxg_fty%3DtiNcvftZMOG%3Dfu3g%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRziFSFpv%2BxXUqVD3%2B1HURxg_fty%3DtiNcvftZMOG%3Dfu3g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9B9D4CDB-329E-4CFC-BD39-6937CA2B7AA4%40ulb.ac.be.
