On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:52 PM, wrote:
>
> I think every macro system, although comprised of a huge number of
> individual constituents, is in one definite state;
No object large enough to see with
your unaided can is in one definite state, that is to say can be described
with a single
On 15/11/2017 1:18 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not
On 11/14/2017 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:52:32 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote
>>
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:50:00 PM UTC-7,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
On
On 13 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither
Bruno nor anyone else has
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 8:54 am, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>
> I don't think you have fully understood the scenario I have outlined.
> There is no collapse, many worlds is assumed throughout. Alice splits
> according to her measurement result. Both copies of Alice go to meet
> Bob, carrying the other p
On 14-11-2017 09:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote:
On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/20
On 14/11/2017 5:51 pm, smitra wrote:
On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07
On 13-11-2017 03:52, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/20
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 10:46:23 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote:
>>
>> >
> >>
>
> What is your d
On 11/13/2017 8:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, >wrote:
>
>>
What is your definition of non-realistic?
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 9:38:54 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote
>>
>> >
>>> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can't have the MWI
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, > wrote
>
>
> >
>> You're conflating Multiverse with the MWI.
>>
>
>
> You can't have the MWI without the Multiverse, and if there is a
> Multiverse then the MWI explains a lot.
>
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:22:08 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, >
> wrote:
>
> >
>>
What is your definition of non-realistic?
>>>
>>> >>
>>> Nonrealistic means when something is not being observed it doesn't
>>> exist in a
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 8:01 PM, wrote:
>
> How is everything except one value in this world (the others dissipating
> into the environment), WORSE than conjuring a multitude of universes for
> the other values to be measured?
>
One theory makes an assumption and the other, being more conser
On 11/13/2017 5:01 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, >wrote:
*
>
If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI
why not just assume the br
On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:41:02 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> *> If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not
>> just assume the branches that aren't measured in this world, dissipate into
>> the environment as
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:40 PM, wrote:
*> If you find collapse of the wf anathema, instead of the MWI why not
> just assume the branches that aren't measured in this world, dissipate into
> the environment as I think Decoherence theory postulates? MWI doesn't tell
> us what will be measured i
On 14/11/2017 10:01 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/13/2017 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, a
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 1:24 AM, wrote:
>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> What is your definition of non-realistic?
>>>
>>
>> >>
>> Nonrealistic means when something is not being observed it doesn't exist
>> in any one definite state.
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
> You have to be careful here. For example, when
On 11/13/2017 1:40 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno
nor anyone else has ever
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:50:00 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, wrote:
On 14/11/2017 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
What really annoys me is the continued claim that many worlds
eliminates the need for non-locality. It does not, and neither Bruno
nor anyone else has ever produced a valid argument as to how many
world
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:05, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 4:02 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Br
On 12 Nov 2017, at 23:23, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 03:47, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> That's not the measurement problem, its determin
On 12 Nov 2017, at 22:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 5:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno
has to rule out the worlds in which angular momentum is not
conserved; he has not s
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:24:15 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, wrote:
>>
>> >
>>> What is your definition of non-realistic?
>>>
>>
>> Nonrealistic means when s
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:15:33 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, >
> wrote:
>
> >
>> What is your definition of non-realistic?
>>
>
> Nonrealistic means when something is not being observed it doesn't exist
> in any one definite state.
>
>
>
On 13/11/2017 12:15 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
In Bruno'
On 12-11-2017 22:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" i
On 13/11/2017 4:13 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 03:47, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how
and why
On 13/11/2017 4:02 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Cl
On 13/11/2017 7:19 am, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" is determing which
world you're in.
If th
On 13/11/2017 5:15 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno
has to rule out the worlds in which angular momentum is not
conserved; he has not shown how he can do this. If it is simply that
you c
On 12-11-2017 11:21, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" is determing which
world you're in.
If that means anything at all, it is still
On 12 Nov 2017, at 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 1:01 AM, wrote:
>
> What is your definition of non-realistic?
>
Nonrealistic means when something is not being observed it doesn't exist
in any one definite state.
A photon hits a horizontally polarizing filter and the universe splits
in two if Many Worlds is rig
On 12 Nov 2017, at 03:47, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>> That's not the measurement problem, its determining
if how and why observation effects things.
> Not to split hairs, but why we ge
On 11/12/2017 2:14 AM, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote
On 11/11/2017 10:57 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM
On 12/11/2017 9:14 pm, smitra wrote:
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
In Bruno's model the "influence at a distance" is determing which
world you're in.
If that means anything at all, it is still non-local because Bruno
has to rule out the
On 12-11-2017 07:57, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan
On 12/11/2017 5:39 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
On 11/11/2017 9:56 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement probl
On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 9:37:28 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, >
> wrote:
>
> >
>> Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process?
>>
>
> You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality is
> violated, and we
On 12/11/2017 4:04 pm, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how
and why obse
On 11/11/2017 6:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how
and why observation effects things.
>
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 3:31 PM, wrote:
>
> Why not just assume the wf collapses by an as-yet unknown process?
>
You can do that if you want, but Bell proved that if his inequality is
violated, and we now know from experiment that it is, and if that unknown
process is deterministic then the
On 12/11/2017 4:34 am, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and
why observation effects things.
>
Not to split hairs, but why we get what we get
On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 10:34:13 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>
>>> >>
>>> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why
>>> observation effects things.
>>>
>>
>> >
>> Not to split hairs, but wh
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Alan Grayson
wrote:
>> >>
>> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why
>> observation effects things.
>>
>
> >
> Not to split hairs, but why we get what we get in quantum measurements,
> and how measurement outcomes come to be wh
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:46 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, wrote:
>
> >
>> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict
>> exact outcomes,
>>
>
> That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why
> observation effects
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, wrote:
>
> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict
> exact outcomes,
>
That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why
observation effects things.
>
> thus making QM a deterministic theory, would that
On 09 Nov 2017, at 16:43, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to
predict exact outcomes,
?
Quantum Mechanics would be refuted (with or without wave packet
reduction).
thus making QM a deterministic theory,
You mean QM+collaps
Already, people like Omnes regard it as a non-problem because
decoherence diagonalizes the density matrix FAPP and so it can be
interpreted as being the same as a mixed state, which is how classical
probability is represented in QM. But others say FAPP isn't good enough
because (1) in principl
How would you define "the measurement problem" to conclude that strictly
diagonalizing the density matrix would be a solution? TIA
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic
> subquantum dynamics. If you could show t
The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic
subquantum dynamics. If you could show that the density matrix becomes
strictly diagonal in some non-arbitrary way (i.e. described by dynamics)
and the eigenvalues obey the Born rule (which I think would follow from
Gleason's
If what you state is correct, then there's no solution to the measurement
problem (if that means discovering a deterministic outcome for individual
trials). Why then is the "measurement problem" still considered a problem
to be solved? What you've presented is more or less proof that no such
so
It would make it possible to use EPR like experiments to send signals
faster than light...which is to say backward in time. That would pretty
much screw up all known physics...and common sense.
Brent
On 11/9/2017 7:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
If the measurement problem were solved in
601 - 660 of 660 matches
Mail list logo
