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. Hal 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 > > > realism......to 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. > >George