You are holding onto a standard idea of realism. The problem is this means we have no way of putting our finger on what is meant by realism. Taking it further, realism only holds when we make observations that abandon locality. Experimental errors in measuring violation of Bell inequalities, in particular with nonlocality, can mean an uncertainty in realism even if we are making observations that have no locality. Our standard concepts of realism is simply a pure idealism, almost a fantasy.
LC On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 3:56:22 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 4:19 PM Lawrence Crowell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > This is a Bell type of experiment where locality is imposed, but two >> observers witness two different version of reality. There is then a loss of >> objectivity to reality, > > > It seems to me it would be more accurate to say this experiment > demonstrates the loss of one unique reality not of reality in general, and > the only things consistent with it would be something like Everett's Many > Worlds or Superdeterminism. Both ideas are crazy but one must be true, and > Many Worlds is less crazy. > > 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/421d14a2-b342-4181-8a4f-be01197aaf6en%40googlegroups.com.
