[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

[Stuart LaForge]

Adrian Tymes wrote:
<To anyone on this list who is not John Clark: have I explained quantum
entanglement well enough?  If not, what specifically (other than "but
it's not weird") would you like to see elaborated upon?>

It's a shame that you and John got into a pointless argument about
probabilities. From my POV it was obvious that John was using the pior
probability of the other ball being heavy while you were using the
posterior probability of it being heavy given you know the color of the
other ball. So you guys were both right but ultimately both calculations
were irrelevant because both calculations disagreed with QM predictions
and results.

I wish you guys had discussed the math less and your *interpretation* of
the results more. I think I have been able to glean that you are taking
the superdeterminism loop-hole and thus preserving local-determinism and
perhaps realism. And you furthermore hope that, despite superdeterminism,
your free will is somehow preserved by the entanglement process itself
perhaps by entangling you with the particles. Am I reading you correctly
here?

John on the otherhand seems to believe that he really does choose the
angle of the polararizer or direction of magnetic field when conducting an
experiment, thus preserving his free will at the cost of realism,
local-determinism, or both. John Clark, care to comment?

Stuart LaForge