[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Adrian Tymes]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I mean that you did in fact assume MWI there, and I pointed out how.

>> > 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?

Not directly.  Rather, certain things X can potentially cause other
things Y, such that it is usually said that Y "exists" when it doesn't
yet, but X does exist, X is real, and X can cause interference.

In this case, Y is the states themselves, and X is the conditions that
could lead to each of the multiple states.