On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bell's 1964 paper only make quantitative what Einstein saw clearly already > Bullshit. Einstein would have been horrified at Bell's paper and the experimental confirmation that Bell's inequality was violated. > > > in 1627 at the Solvay Congress in Brussels > Einstein's EPR paper (which is his closest thing to Bell's paper) came out in 1935 not 1627. > > So I am waiting since long a proof of no-locality As I have said at least twice there is no such proof, but there is proof that if things really are local then things are either non-deterministic or not realistic. Take your pick. > > I think that Einstein would have eventually opt for Everett's view on the > matter, as it keeps determinism, locality, and even contextuality, in the > big picture, and explain the appearance of a lack of them by the 1-3 > difference. > [...] > Experiment does not show that reality is not local, indeterminist or > acontextual. > In another thread somebody said that the definition of an idiot is somebody who can not admit even to himself that he is wrong. Hmm. 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/d/optout.
