On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> AT LEAST one of the following properties of that theory must be untrue: >> 1) Determinism >> 2) Locality >> 3) Realism > > > > > You have repeated this claim several times, John, but it is not strictly > true. Maudlin summarizes it like this: > > "Early on, Bell's result was often reported as ruling out *determinism*, > or *hidden variables*. Nowadays, it is sometimes reported as ruling out, > or at least calling in question, *realism*. But these are all mistakes. > What Bell's theorem, together with the experimental results, proves to be > impossible is not determinism or hidden variables or realism, but *locality, > *in a perfectly clear sense*. *What Bell proved, and what theoretical > physics has not yet properly absorbed, is that the physical world itself is > non-local." > a > He's right, Bell didn't rule out determinism or realism, but if you insist on both there is a high price that must be payed, non-locality ; but Maudlin can't seem to get a grip on Many worlds and can't decide if its a local theory or not. And B ell isn't the only problem, we now know that the Leggett–Garg inequality is also violated and that means the non-locality must be even stranger. It certainly seems to me, and Maudlin gave me no reason to think otherwise, that if things are not realistic, if a photon is neither horizontally nor vertically polarized until I measure it, if things don't fully exist till I observe it them , then things can be local, although I would be unable even in principle to determine with 100% certainty what the electron will do because that depends on what I do and I won't know what that is until I do it. He does mention the Superdeterminism loophole and I do admit you could have all 3 with that , but its hard for me to take it seriously because the the initial conditions of the universe would have to be in a very very very specific and rare state. Maybe the conditions 13.8 billion years ago were set up in such a way that today I had to place my polarizing filter in a horizontal direction set up in such a way that Bells inequality was violated but things are still local and realistic. Maybe its pointless to even ask what would have happened it I had set it vertically instead because there is no way I could have done it, it was preordained 13.8 billion years ago that I would set it horizontally and doing otherwise would violate the laws of deterministic physics. Maybe the universe is a put up job set up just to fool us, but I doubt it. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
