On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:24 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > On 09-04-2022 04:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 12:25 PM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics > >> > >> "The Many-Worlds interpretation, also known as the Everett > >> interpretation, is local and deterministic, as it consists of the > >> unitary part of quantum mechanics without collapse. It can generate > >> correlations that violate a Bell inequality because it doesn't satisfy > >> the implicit assumption that Bell made that measurements have a single > >> outcome. In fact, Bell's theorem can be proven in the Many-Worlds > >> framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single outcome. > >> Therefore a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a > >> demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes." > > > > What a remarkably silly argument. The writer here is claiming that > > since Bell's theorem doesn't apply to many worlds, many worlds can > > give a local account of the correlations. It is amazing that so many > > people claim this, but no one has ever given this remarkable local > > account of the Bell correlations; in many worlds, or in any other > > theory. > > > > No, it says that MWI is local because of unitary time evolution (which > is then assumed to be generated by a local Hamiltonian) So, MWI is local > by definition once we use the correct Hamiltonian defined by the known > laws of physics. Then given that MWI is local and deterministic and yet > it violates Bell's inequalities (because it reproduces QM predictions > correctly), it follows that the MWI must violate an assumption Bell > made. And that is then that measurements have single outcomes. This is > violated in the MWI. You can also say that this makes MWI violate > realism as John Clark has pointed out often on this list. >
So, to end this interminable argument, just give this fabulous local many worlds account of the Bell correlations. It is all very well to claim that MWI is manifestly local, then step sideways and avoid giving the required local account of the correlations. In a sense, Bell's theorem becomes irrelevant if a local account of the correlations can be provided. So provide it, and the argument is over. 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTMBiTsmhJ-0Hu5%3DcQ8HtE__XJdg0s4gqyGuEHxv6YARQ%40mail.gmail.com.
