On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>then one or both of those assumptions must be false. That was Bell's
>>>> entire point, he proposed an exparament to determine if the assumptions
>>>> were true or not. It turned out they were not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *>>> But my point was that Bell did not assume counterfactual
>>> definiteness.*
>>>
>>
>> >>That was your point?? You just said "*I can provide many references
>> which claim that Bell did assume counterfactual definiteness*"!
>>
>
> *> You are trolling again.*
>

 Mr. Kellett, please go fuck yourself.

>> *All he *[Bell] *assumed was that any possible hidden variables were
>>> local. So it is locality that is disproven by the experimental results.
>>> Nothing about counterfactual definiteness or realism, since Bell did not
>>> assume either of these things*.
>>>
>>
>> You and Maudlin may believe that but it is certainly a minority
>> viewpoint:
>>
>> *"The dependability of counterfactually definite values is a basic
>> assumption, which, together with "time asymmetry" and "local causality" led
>> to the Bell inequalities. Bell showed that the results of experiments
>> intended to test the idea of hidden variables would be predicted to fall
>> within certain limits based on all three of these assumptions"*
>>
>
> *> That is false*.
>

So Wikipedia says one thing and world class authority on Quantum
Mechanics Bruce
Kellett says the oposite (see reference below). I will let others on this
list decide for themselves which one is more likely to be correct,

Counterfactual definiteness
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness#Many_Worlds>

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0ALEW0xxOut%2BVUud3HedA5FfcnL19ik_4h0RE5gEEHWA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to