Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 17 Aug 2018, at 01:05, Bruce Kellett > wrote: I think this may be the origin of your problem. If we look at a position measurement, we have some wave function describing a wave packet as a superposition of

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 17 Aug 2018, at 01:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 13:12, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> No, I am not OK with your notion of a 'world'. It makes no sense, and it >>> serves no purpose to

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 22:37, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:45:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You seem to reintroduce implicitly some collapse in the picture. That’s my >> feeling, as this is not clear.

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 21:58, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:05:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2018, at 13:33, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> From: Bruno Marchal > On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote:

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:50, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/16/2018 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:33, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > And you have not recovered the

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:48, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/16/2018 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:29, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/15/2018 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 20:45, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You seem to reintroduce implicitly some collapse in the picture. That’s my >> feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two possible >> values *for all possible

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 16 Aug 2018, at 13:12, Bruce Kellett > wrote: No, I am not OK with your notion of a 'world'. It makes no sense, and it serves no purpose to confuse this peculiar notion with the well-defined notion of disjoint

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:45:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > You seem to reintroduce implicitly some collapse in the picture. That’s my > feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two > possible values *for all

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 10:05:31 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Aug 2018, at 13:33, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > If

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/16/2018 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:29, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/15/2018 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/14/2018 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/16/2018 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You seem to reintroduce implicitly some collapse in the picture. That’s my feeling, as this is not clear. When measuring a spin: there are two possible values *for all possible direction of the spin*. For all possible directions of the spin

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 13:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 13:33, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> Do you really no know how to pick out a typical component from an ensemble? >> >> >> I cannot

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 13:33, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Do you really no know how to pick out a typical component from an ensemble? I cannot when the elements cannot be distinguished. The fact that they cannot be

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 16 Aug 2018, at 01:05, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:39:40 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: >> >> >>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:39, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:33, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum structure, >> I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum logic. >> It is richer than the quantum

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 21:29, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/15/2018 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/14/2018 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the wave structure

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 16:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: : Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 13:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 7:39:40 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/15/2018 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And you have not recovered the quantitative aspect of the quantum structure, I did at the propositional level, which is enough to have the quantum logic. It is richer than the quantum logic of the physicians, so this predicts new things. What are

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/15/2018 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/14/2018 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the wave structure integrally. If you read words metaphorically then you can make them mean

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 2:41:12 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, August

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 11:49:04 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:36, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 12:22, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> How do you explain

Re:: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If they are space separated,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 10:22:40 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> How do

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 9:58:57 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you > explain the different

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 15 Aug 2018, at 01:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> If they are space separated, I am not sure I can make sense of being in the same branch.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 9:01:25 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:00:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:20:26 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> From: Jason Resch >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you explain >> the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. >> >> If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:26, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> With Mechanism, the reason why an electron seem to pass through two holes at >> once is due to the fact that my consciousness is independent of which path >> the particle is taking. The

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:32, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice"

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 20:09, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/14/2018 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the wave structure >> integrally. > > If you read words metaphorically then you can make them mean anything. The whole point is

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett > wrote: No, Price is wrong. He

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett > wrote: If they are space separated, I am not sure I can make sense of being in the same branch. You appear to be referring to the presence of quantum fluctuations

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 11:00:23 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:20:26 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Jason Resch >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> From: Jason Resch >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 3:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How do you explain interference fringes in the two slits? How do you explain the different behaviour of u+d and a mixture of u and d. If the wave is not real, how doe it interfere even when we are not there? How does it interfere with itself

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 2:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With Mechanism, the reason why an electron seem to pass through two holes at once is due to the fact that my consciousness is independent of which path the particle is taking. The reason why that interfere is provided by the logic of self-reference

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:32, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the same

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/14/2018 2:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: kicking back of the fact that we have to take account the wave structure integrally. If you read words metaphorically then you can make them mean anything. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 1:20:26 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Jason Resch > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> >

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 06:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >> > Baylock made valiant attempts to introduce some measurements that were > not made in order

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 11:06:22 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 3:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > If you start with impossible initial conditions you get impossible >>> results. Doesn't mean the theory is wrong. >>> >>> Brent >>> >> >> What are the impossible initial

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 06:05, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 6:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote: >> >> >> On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> > I bring this question up because you

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:30, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: > but the FTL are needed only if we associate the mind on Bob and Alice to the same branche,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> No, Price is wrong. He collapses the wave function in a non-local manner, >>> even though he doesn't

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 04:01, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, > wrote: > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: > From: Jason Resch > >>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 03:31, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > > Alice" before the

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 01:06, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 3:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com > wrote: >>> If you start with impossible initial conditions you get impossible results. >>> Doesn't mean the theory is wrong. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> What

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:32, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" >> before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the >> same branch" prior to measurement.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 23:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> The wave function is not a "physical" object -- it can easily change >>> instantaneously, just as probabilities change on the advent of new >>> information. >> >> Then we are no more in

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2018 6:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> ...the measure on the set of branches are always 2^(aleph_0), and the >> measure is given by the square of the the amplitude of probability. > > ?? 2^(aleph_0) is never the square of the

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Baylock made valiant attempts to introduce some measurements that were not made in order to show that Bell assumed counterfactual definiteness, but his attempts

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > Alice" before the measurement, and also

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett > wrote: but the FTL are needed only if we associate the mind on Bob and Alice to the same branche, which has no meaning for me once they are space separated. You might

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 12 Aug 2018, at 14:59, Bruce Kellett > wrote: No, Price is wrong. He collapses the wave function in a non-local manner, even though he doesn't seem to realize it. Let me try again. The state is     |psi>=

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 06:58, wrote: > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >>> From: Jason Resch >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:32 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one > > Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in > > one and the same branch" prior to measurement.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 3:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If you start with impossible initial conditions you get impossible results.  Doesn't mean the theory is wrong. Brent What are the impossible initial conditions? AG You apparently contemplated a perfectly

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 10:20:09 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 5:51:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 5:51:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I bring this question up because you repeatedly refer to only "one Alice" before the measurement, and also say that Alice and Bob are "in one and the same branch" prior to measurement.  But normal QM without collapse would say Alice and Bob are

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The wave function is not a "physical" object -- it can easily change instantaneously, just as probabilities change on the advent of new information. Then we are no more in Everett non-collapse QM, and I am not sure how you can explain the double

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:27:55 PM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> From: Jason Resch > >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> They do

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/13/2018 6:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ...the measure on the set of branches are always 2^(aleph_0), and the measure is given by the square of the the amplitude of probability. ?? 2^(aleph_0) is never the square of the amplitude of probability. Brent -- You received this message

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

f special relativity, notably well described by >>>>>>>> Maudlin. Maudlin agrees that many-mind restore locality, and its >>>>>>>> “many-mind” theory is close to what I think Everett had in mind, and >>>>>>>> is close t

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:05 AM Bruce Kellett wrote: > From: Jason Resch > > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> They do not "belong to different branches" because they do not exist, and >> have never existed.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 13 Aug 2018, at 00:48, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:49, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett >>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/12/2018 10:13 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since QM allows the probability calculation for the double slit from minus to

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Monday, August 13, 2018 at 2:10:33 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since QM allows the probability > calculation for the double slit from minus to plus infinitely for any > moment in time, it means we

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Jason Resch* mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: They do not "belong to different branches" because they do not

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:06 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave > function all the way along. There are

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *I meant to write; Just DO the math! Since QM allows the probability calculation for the double slit from minus to plus infinitely for any moment in time, it means we have and know the data simultaneously for all positions on the screen.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 10:56:00 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal > > > You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL > influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

action, specifically between the subsystems. >> Describing the phenomenon as "influencing" does not avoid the conclusion >> that QM contradicts SR, even though no messages can be sent using singlet >> state non locality. AG * >> > > *The usual suspects are

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL influence. Personally, I do not dig on

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

, even if there is no >>>>>>> information transfer possible, it leads to big problems with any >>>>>>> reality >>>>>>> interpretation of special relativity, notably well described by >>>>>>> Maudlin. >>>>>>

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

oo, without the need of any >>> instantaneity. >>> >> >> *It's not about "needing" anything. It's about what can be calculated and >> what it obviously means! AG * >> >>> >>> >>> >>> * It's worse than FTL, muc

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

lin. Maudlin agrees >>>>> that many-mind restore locality, and its “many-mind” theory is close to >>>>> what I think Everett had in mind, and is close to what I defended already >>>>> from the mechanist hypothesis. To be sure, Albert and Lower Many-

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett > wrote: From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The original Alice and Bob are

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

t; Non-separability means that if you interact with one part of the state, >>>> you affect the whole state: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure you affect any state. You just discover in which branch >>>> you are. The wave on

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > >> You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL >> influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue, because I use only >> Everett QM to evaluate what mechanism

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:49, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >>> Without collapse and FTL potential, or FTL (non-local) hidden variable theory, how do you

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 11 Aug 2018, at 02:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave >>> function all the way

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

; Maudlin. Maudlin agrees that many-mind restore locality, and its >>>>>>> “many-mind” theory is close to what I think Everett had in mind, and is >>>>>>> close to what I defended already from the mechanist hypothesis. To be >>>>>>&

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

t;> that many-mind restore locality, and its “many-mind” theory is close to >>>> what I think Everett had in mind, and is close to what I defended already >>>> from the mechanist hypothesis. To be sure, Albert and Lower Many-Minds >>>> assumes an infinity of mind for one b

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> You are the one telling that the Bell’s inequality violation entails FTL influence. Personally, I do not dig on that issue, because I use only Everett QM to evaluate what mechanism predicts. I might try to send a post why I do not follow your

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Without collapse and FTL potential, or FTL (non-local) hidden variable theory, how do you interpret the singlet state? That is actually a rather strange

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The original Alice and Bob are those in the same branch of the wave function all the way along. There are no unmatched Alices or Bobs. In each branch, I agree.

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

d Lower Many-Minds >>> assumes an infinity of mind for one body, where in mechanism we got an >>> infinity of relative body for one mind, but the key issue is that all >>> measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The measurement splits locally >>> the observers, and

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

gt;>>> Albert and Lower Many-Minds assumes an infinity of mind for one body, >>>>>> where in mechanism we got an infinity of relative body for one mind, but >>>>>> the key issue is that all measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The >&

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 14:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> >>> On 9 Aug 2018, at 06:55, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 12:02, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 8/9/2018 1:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> But because particle 2 is intrinsically entangled with particle 1, any >>> interaction with one particle necessarily affects the other particle. >> >> I don’t see why you say this, except

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

hanist hypothesis. To be sure, Albert and Lower Many-Minds >> assumes an infinity of mind for one body, where in mechanism we got an >> infinity of relative body for one mind, but the key issue is that all >> measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The measurement splits loc

<    1   2   3   >