On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0ALEW0xxOut%2BVUud3HedA5FfcnL19ik_4h0RE5gEEHWA%40mail.gmail.com.
