On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:19 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote:

> On 06-04-2022 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > You have not responded to this direct argument. I should point out
> > that I did not make it clear in the original presentation that I am
> > talking about states that are defined at two or more distinct
> > spacetime points. If you have everything at a single point, the
> > distinction between locality and separability becomes blurred. So, in
> > more detail. We have a state defined at two distinct spacetime points,
> > x and y: C(x,y). If we assume Humeanism, each spacetime point is
> > complete and independent of all other spacetime points. This is
> > locality,
> his is a far stronger constraint than locality, it's only satisfied in
> classical models with local interactions.

It is the relevant concept of locality for consideration of the Bell
correlations.  HV models are, in fact, essentially classical models with
local interactions. Other formulations of the locality postulate also imply
Humeanism -- the complete state of the world is determined by the intrinsic
physical state of each spacetime point and the spatio-temporal relations
between these points.


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 

Reply via email to