Re: Many-minds interpretation?

gt;>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Non-separability means that if you interact with one part of the state, >>>> you affect the whole state: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>

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 p

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 int

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 alon

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?

gt; 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 cr

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 question.

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. Bu

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

er 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 th

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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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 > wrote: The real problem I see with many-m

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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 that you talk like if Bob and Alice where related to the same branch,

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> 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 >> > wrote: >>> The real problem I see with many-minds theory is that it does not actually >>> explain the observed cor

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

> On 9 Aug 2018, at 02:03, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:16AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> needs to be abandoned, though. The only additional feature of the >>> phenomenal physics is the existence of

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

t;>>> I defended already from the mechanist 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

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

nds 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 observer

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> On 8 Aug 2018, at 13:50, Bruce Kellett > wrote: The real problem I see with many-minds theory is that it does not actually explain the observed correlations. The correlations are presumed not to exist in reality -

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:07:16AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 8 Aug 2018, at 02:20, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > needs to be abandoned, though. The only additional feature of the > > phenomenal physics is the existence of random oracles, which does not > > enlarge the class of com

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

hat all > measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The measurement splits locally > the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed. > > > I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would > want to support. In many-minds, the physical body is alwa

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

nd, but the key issue is that all measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The measurement splits locally the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed. I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would want to support. In many-minds, the physical body is

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

es 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 propagate at subli

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

e at subliminal speed. I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would want to support. In many-minds, the physical body is always in the superposition of all possible results, but the 'mind' can never be in such a superposition, That sides with Mechanism

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

bert 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 s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

belongs to some mind. The measurement splits locally >>the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed. >> >> >> I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would >> want >> to support. In many-minds, the physical body is alway

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

M from each location perspective. To say that the mind is not in a superposition is equivalent with Everett’s justification that the observer cannot feel the split, and it is where Everett use (more or less explicitly) the mechanist hypothesis. > so stochastically chooses to record only one

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

gt; measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The measurement splits locally >> the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed. >> >> >> I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would >> want to support. In many-minds, the physical bod

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

On 8/7/2018 6:51 PM, Russell Standish wrote: "Yes, Doctor" appears to wrap up the idea that the computational mind cannot be in superposition of mind states, supporting Albert and Loewer's position over that of primitive physical supervenience. Nevertheless, physical supervenie

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

locally the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed. I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would want to support. In many-minds, the physical body is always in the superposition of all possible results, but the 'mind' can never be

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

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 propagate at subliminal s

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

longs to some mind. The measurement splits locally >     the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed. > > > I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would want > to support. In many-minds, the physical body is always in the superposition of > all

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

inity 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 propagate at subliminal speed. > > > I don't

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

ody, 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 propagate at subliminal speed. > > > I don't think that the many-mi

Re: Many-minds interpretation?

chastically chooses to record only one definite result from the mix. In the > Wikipedia article on the many-minds interpretation, the following comment > might > be relevant for you: > > "Finally, [many-minds] supposes that there is some physical distinction > between > a con

Many-minds interpretation?

dy for one mind, but the key issue is that all measurement outcomes belongs to some mind. The measurement splits locally the observers, and propagate at subliminal speed. I don't think that the many-minds interpretation is really what you would want to support. In many-minds, the physi

<    1   2   3