[ExI] Many Worlds (was: A Simulation Argument)

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sunday 13 January 2008, Damien Broderick wrote:
> >But why is it weird? Photons are 'black boxes' that can produce
> >responses  during interaction with experimental setup, and you can't
> >know contents of these black boxes prior to actually looking. So
> > each photon 'knows' how it will respond to next experiment, but you
> > do not. Photons in an entangled pair are synchronized, that is
> > their 'contents' are the same, but still unknown to you. Then, when
> > you independently probe them, you get the same result, since they
> > have the same 'contents'.
>
> That's exactly what Bell, and experiments based on his work,
> *disproved*. (At least, that's the standard interpretation: no hidden
> variables.)

Yep. From the link in my post re: "Kantian" quantum mechanics:

http://www.friesian.com/space-2.htm
> The discomfort that I feel is associated with the fact that the 
> observed perfect quantum correlations seem to demand something like 
> the "genetic" hypothesis. For me, it is so reasonable to assume that 
> the photons in those experiments carry with them programs, which have 
> been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so 
> rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others 
> refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although 
> history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I 
> feel that Einstein's intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this 
> instance, was enormous; a vast gulf between the man who saw clearly 
> what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that 
> Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work.            
-- John Stewart Bell (1928-1990), author of "Bell's Theorem" (or "Bell's 
Inequality"), quoted in Quantum Profiles, by Jeremy Bernstein 
[Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 84]

- Bryan
________________________________________
Bryan Bishop
http://heybryan.org/