On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> His inequality also depended on discounting retro-causation and
If retro-causation exists then things are not local.
> and hyper-determinism
If things are super-deterministic then things are not realistic. Bell
assumed realism because he needed to be able to talk about what the results
of a experiment would have been if different choices were made, but if
things are super-deterministic then different choices could NOT have been
made. So Bell assumed realism.
> which Bell considered but rejected as unbelievable.
It doesn't matter what Bell personally thought was believable or
unbelievable, Bell proved that if realism and locality and high school
algebra and trigonometry are valid then his inequality can never be
violated. But experiment showed that Bell's inequality WAS violated,
therefor at least one of Bell's assumptions is wrong and either realism or
locality or high school mathematics MUST be wrong. And I don't think its
high school mathematics.
> Now both have been seriously proposed: the former by Cramer and Stenger,
> the latter by t'Hooft.
All those interpretations are still in the running just as MWI is, but
theories that are both realistic and local are not.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.