On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> His inequality also depended on discounting retro-causation and > hyper-determinism, > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
