[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
> MWI explains how quantum computers can work. The other collapse-theories,
> cannot.

This at least acknowledges the objection that I raised, for which I thank you.

I grant, and I think you do as well, that there exist quantum
computers, with directly observed patterns of input and output, and
time taken to do said processing that is shorter than a normal
computer.  I believe we can further agree that this rules out some of
the alternatives to MWI.

However, to my knowledge, there exist other alternate theories that
can explain this just as well as MWI, which leaves a group of theories
including MWI which quantum computers can not distinguish between.
This alternate specifically includes that, rather than us landing in
one of the multiple co-existing resulting worlds as in MWI, only one
such world exists, even if the determinant of which one (e.g., exactly
when a given atom decays) is random, similar to MWI's selector of all
the prior events that resulted in our present world.  (In other words,
the reason why a given coin flip went one way or the other, once that
flip has already happened and we are looking at a past event, is
roughly the same in MWI as in single-world, the only difference being
that those other worlds in which the coin flipped the other way or
landed on edge - which are undetectable in MWI - don't actually
exist.)

The distinction may rest on whether the alternatives that I am aware
of, you define as "collapse theories" or some other kind of theories
(that, while not "collapse theories", are still alternatives to MWI).

So, might I ask you to explain how the alternative theories can not
explain the observed behavior of quantum computers?