4 ms·

> Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many wor

by wyager 10y ago

> Yet QM shows us that the world isn't fundamentally discreet but rather non-local No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Please stop trying to use QM in philosophy arguments. If you do, you're almost certainly misunderstanding what it entails.

danbruc 10y ago
No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Entanglement seems to be fundamentally non-local - unless you posit hidden variables - and does not depend on the interpretation.
- wyager 10y ago
  It is not. Theories like einselection explain entanglement with only local effects (via superselection rules).
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    It's ironic that you go on to use something as an argument against non-locality which I think it's safe to say there is even less actual consensus about.
    - wyager 10y ago
      In what way is it ironic? I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to be aware of the entire solution space.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        I am well aware of the solution space just as I am aware that the one your are proposing isn't even close to being what one would consider having solid foundation.
ThomPete 10y ago
Non-locality is baked in because the theories are based on that principle. They are not invented to make the theory make sense. Bells theorem shows that there is actually "spooky action at a distance". So I am not using some arbitrary collapse theory in QM as a philosophy argument I am using Bells theorem which happens to be one of the most important experiments in the field of QM as I am sure you know better than anyone.
- wyager 10y ago
  No, that is not what bell's theorem does. Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variable theories. It leaves open multiple explanations for how entanglement works, including subjective collapse, nonlocal effects, superdeterminism, etc.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Sure but to claim that non-locality is an interpretation on the same line as ex Einselection is just absurd to say the least.

by wyager 10y ago

danbruc 10y ago

No, it doesn't show us that. A number of collapse theories (notably many worlds) have non-locality baked in, but we don't know if they're correct. Entanglement seems to be fundamentally non-local - unless you posit hidden variables - and does not depend on the interpretation.

wyager 10y ago
It is not. Theories like einselection explain entanglement with only local effects (via superselection rules).
- ThomPete 10y ago
  It's ironic that you go on to use something as an argument against non-locality which I think it's safe to say there is even less actual consensus about.
  - wyager 10y ago
    In what way is it ironic? I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to be aware of the entire solution space.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      I am well aware of the solution space just as I am aware that the one your are proposing isn't even close to being what one would consider having solid foundation.

ThomPete 10y ago

Non-locality is baked in because the theories are based on that principle. They are not invented to make the theory make sense. Bells theorem shows that there is actually "spooky action at a distance". So I am not using some arbitrary collapse theory in QM as a philosophy argument I am using Bells theorem which happens to be one of the most important experiments in the field of QM as I am sure you know better than anyone.

wyager 10y ago
No, that is not what bell's theorem does. Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variable theories. It leaves open multiple explanations for how entanglement works, including subjective collapse, nonlocal effects, superdeterminism, etc.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Sure but to claim that non-locality is an interpretation on the same line as ex Einselection is just absurd to say the least.