On Feb 12, 3:02 am, Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's a bit simplistic. The nett result of EPR/Bell/Aspect is either- > > indeterminism-or-nonlocal-hidden-variable. If NLHV's can be disproved, > > that proves indeterminism > > Actually there is a third alternative, which is to take the time > symmetry of physical law seriously, as suggested by Huw Price in > "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point". That explains all the above (EPR/ > Bell/Aspect) without any additional assumptions such as FTL > signalling, causality violation, hidden variables etc.
There are a number of ways of explaining EPR. The question is how palatable the explanation is. If you a re a traditionalist about causality, you are not going to find reversed causality palatable. >(Bell himself > admitted that this was the only loophole in his argument.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
