[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > According to the theory, this thing is the wave
> >> > function, and the resources used are all of the wave functions various
> >> > superpositions.
> >>
> >> "Assume MWI, therefore MWI."  Sorry, that's circular reasoning.
> >
> > ### We do not assume MWI here
>
> "According to the theory" means that the rest of it is true if the
> theory is true.  You then present a case where the theory is
> true...but it's still qualified with "According to the theory".
>

### I really do not understand what you could possibly mean here.

-------------------------------


>
> > If the computational results
> > depend on the interference between a number of quantum states predicted
> by
> > the wave function, then each of the states exists - or else it would not
> be
> > capable of being causally involved in the generation of computational
> > results.
>
> A thing can have the potential to exist without actually existing.
> The things that give rise to that potential can exist without the end
> result coming into existence, and perform the necessary interference
> themselves, getting rid of that potential through their interactions.
>

### So potentially existing but not really existing things are according to
you capable of interference with real things?

Really :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161230/3663219e/attachment.html>