Dear George:

I do not see how the aspect of Juergen's approach he cited at the 
initiation of this part of the thread causes a dilemma re Bell's 
inequality.  As I understand it the history h is not THE history until the 
applicable portion of h stops changing.  But p and q are both non 
halting.  No part of h may settle in a finite time.  So what? The generator 
q" is not "in" h.  The fact that p may recompute virtually any amount of h 
depending on what happens to q(n) is not a non locality "in" h but rather a 
substitution of a new h for the old h.  The old h is no longer relevant.

However, p itself being global seems to me to allow the violation of Bell's 
inequality in its universe.  My "formal" system has the same feature as 
does a UD IMO.  As far as I know the violation of Bell's inequality was 
already well established in our universe.


At 5/22/01, you wrote:

>jamikes wrote:
> > "George Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >  Saturday, May 05, 2001 :
> >
> > (SNIP Jurgen's remark about "such a universe" whatever, my remark is not
> > topical, rather principle:)
> >
> > > Such a universe would violate Bell' inequality theorem. Quantum 
> randomness
> > > cannot be simulated by hidden variables. We have to move beyond
> > > get a model of objective reality we must first develop a
> > > model of consciousness.
> > >
> > > George
> >
> > Can you restrict a universe according to its compliance with or 
> violation of
> > a theory, no matter how ingenious, or vice versa? Are WE the creators who
> > has to perform according to some rules/circumstances of human logic or
> > computability?
> > John Mikes
> > >
>I am not restricting anything. I am only saying that Juergens has to choose
>between violating Bell's  inequality theorem and all that this implies, or not
>and all that this implies. My stand is that we shouldn't.

Reply via email to