[ExI] Demonstration of Bell's Inequality
atymes at gmail.com
Sat Nov 26 01:23:10 UTC 2016
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:
> So you guys were both right but ultimately both calculations
> were irrelevant because both calculations disagreed with QM predictions
> and results.
Yeah - as I pointed out, that analog broke with QM in its definitions,
so fine-detailed predictions couldn't be mapped back to QM.
> 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
Pretty much. It all depends on what the "you" that has free will is:
it would be in agreement with observations to assume some unobservable
spirit/soul/whatever that has free will and is determining the quantum
outcomes. Free will is not itself observable, so using it to
constrain scientific theories doesn't work.
Specifically, I am proposing superdeterminism from the moment a
quantum transaction has finished, regardless of when the results are
observed (though it is certainly possible to talk about the collapse
of the information space of the results), but random chance is what
causes the transaction to take a particular outcome (out of the ones
it could have taken).
> 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?
>From his comments I would guess local-determinism. I didn't see
anything to suggest he thinks that the observer chooses the outcome of
the experiment; instead, I just saw a bunch of comments that the
outcome was "weird" and inexplicable by any means.
More information about the extropy-chat