On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 3:23 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*> Suppose we assume Bell experiments establish that Bell's inequality is > violated,* *We don't need to assume that, thanks to experiment, we know for a fact that Bell's inequality is violated.* *> and that this can be interpreted to mean that hidden variables do not > exist*. *No! It can NOT be interpreted in that way, the violation of Bell's Inequality proves that LOCAL hidden variables do not exist IF the universe is realistic and deterministic. * > *> Does this statement, if true, establish that Realism is false?* *No, the meaning is more subtle than that. It establishes that realism *might* be false, and it establishes that if realism is true then the world can't be both deterministic and local. In Many Worlds realism is false but that's why the violation of Bell's Inequality does not prove it's correct, it only proves that it might be correct. * *> By Realism, I mean the belief that the measured result of some property > of a measured entity pre-exists the measurement.* *The precise definition of realism is that one and only one specific set of properties pre-exists the measurement, although some people, such as Roger Penrose, don't think that caveat is necessary because the Many Worlds idea is a Reductio ad absurdum on it's very face and thus not even worth thinking about. I respectfully disagree with Sir Roger about that.* *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* prs > -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1BVAs1kLbMY5QK7TcE%2BJok8BKm017Ew9Z-nR3TYFPtbw%40mail.gmail.com.
