[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality

[Adrian Tymes]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:40 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the Extropian list is working properly and I don't think
> people who aren't on Gmail are seeing our conversation.

Can anyone on the list not in GMail confirm or deny if you're seeing
it?  I haven't seen my own responses bounced back to me, but that's
normal and expected.

> Well that pretty much settles the matter, you're wrong. You say above that
> the probability should be 1 chance in 2, quantum mechanics says it's 1
> chance in 3,  and when Bell's experiment is actually performed the results
> say the correct answer is indeed 1 chance in 3. So quantum mechanics is
> right and you are wrong. If you have a problem with that blame the universe
> not me.

1) This analogy is not itself a QM experiment.  The "three properties"
that are independent here are not in fact independent in the original
paper we were talking about, so the calculations - such as 1 in 2 vs.
1 in 3 vs. 1 in 4 - completely break off from what Bell's inequality
talks about.

2) Until this email, you were saying it was 1 chance in 4.  I wasn't
even getting into Bell's inequality on this part; I was just saying
that by your own logic, it was 1 in 2.  You fail to convince me in
part because you have contradicted yourself repeatedly.

>>> Do
>>> you
>>> seriously
>>> think you are the first to see something clearly that all physicists
>>> since1964 have
>>> been confused about, or do you think it's possible that maybe just maybe
>>> it is you that is
>>> confused
>>> ?
>>
>> I am not the only one who has seen this.  It is not the case that "all
>> physicists since 1964" have been in lockstep agreement on this.
>
> There was massive disagreement on how to explain this, and many of these
> explanations are no longer viable due to recent experimental results.
> However there is little or no disagreement about what quantum mechanics
> predicts, what the experimental results are, or in the very very strong
> feeling that results are weird.

1) The universe is what the universe is.  Weird only applies when one
is used to one model and aspects of it prove incorrect.  One changes
the model one is using to one that explains it.  I have presented a
model that explains it.

2) Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.  Even in the nearly
impossible case that I am literally the only person to have observed
this in the past roughly half-century, that alone would be irrelevant
to the logic.

>> if one assumes that all
>> quantum entanglements are programmed at their start - which would seem
>> to preclude the possibility of free will,
>
> Free will is neither possible nor impossible because free will is gibberish.

Agreed, from the point of view of what is scientifically provable, but
that was still the reason given for rejection according to the
article.