[ExI] Bell's Inequality

[Jason Resch]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 30, 2016 6:55 AM, "Jason Resch" <jasonresch at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonresch at gmail.com');>> wrote:
> >
> > Are you familiar with:
> > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism ?
>
> I should have known there'd be a word for it.  Thanks!  :)
>
> > Someone earlier stated Bell's Inequality implies we have to give up one
> of: locality, determinism, or realism. This list is incomplete, we must
> give up one of: locality, determinism, realism, or counterfactual
> definiteness.
> >
> > Counterfactual definiteness means experiments have only one outcome. MWI
> gives up counterfactual definiteness and retains locality, determinism and
> realism.
>
> But experiments do have only one outcome, as experienced and observed by
> the experimenters.  Any alternate worlds are immeasurable and may as well
> not exist.
>
That's not quite what's meant by counterfactual definiteness though.

Realism, in QM also implies something different from whether or not
something is observable. According to Bohr, only measurements are real.
This view dispenses with a reality external from observers. In MWI, the
universal wave function is real independent of observers or observation.

It is why Einstein asked someone who believed in the Copenhagen
Interpretation "Do you really believe the moon only exists when you're
looking at it?"

In MW, the moon definitely does exist, even when no one is looking at it,
so it is a theory that maintains/restores realism to QM.

All of Einstein's criticisms of QM, that it abandoned realism, locality,
and determinism, are issues that are resolved by MW. I think Einstein would
have enthusiastically embraced it, had he lived to see it.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20161130/8dfdc734/attachment.html>