On 26 January 2014 11:18, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear LizR, > > You lost me. Why are you and others so wedded to local realism? > Because it's the simplest assumption that explains why violations of Bell's inequality are possible, Because it's a lot simpler to construct a local realist ontology with time symmetry than one that requries mysterious FTL connections or a mysterious lack of properties, and then has to use some myseterious hand waving about macroscopic stuff like thermodynamics that isn't even applicable so it can justify ignoring the simplest available explanation. > > "The arguments against realism in QM critically assume "Bell's fourth > assumption" - that there is some underlying time asymmetry built into > physics. If one throws out this (so far unproven) assumption, it become > logically possible to explain violations of Bell's inequality while > preserving realism and locality." > > Umm, thermodynamics... Sure, our mathematical models of physical laws are > such that they are piece-wise time symmetric, but a mountain of paper has > been used arguing that micro-reversibility of physical laws does not > support local realism. > Contrariwise. I've already argued this in some detail, and I have limited time, but briefly, we only observe BI violations in experiments that are carefully constructed to avoid the effects of thermodynamics (e.g. pairs of entangled photons). We construct a situation where micro-reversibility is going to show up (if it does anywhere) and then wonder why the results appear odd when we use macroscopic (thermodynamic) reasoning! The reason is, those photon pairs are going to show up micro-symmetry if anything does, because photons aren't complicated macro structures with "a memory of the past". > > I invite you to read Donald Hoffman's paper on perception. > http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf > He makes a very good case that Nature does not select for truthful 1p > content, it selects for content that maximizes fitness. Local realism is > yet another figment of our imagination, IMHO. > Sorry ironically no time to read yet more papers, plus I'm using very basic physics here, and perception is a high level phenomenon. Time symmetry is just used to explain low level stuff like photon counting, are you saying Aspect etc aren't seeing "the truth" ? (If so you just shot yourself in the foot since that is the sort of experiment that apparently shows no local realism!) -- 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.
