[ExI] Bell's Inequality

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Sun Nov 27 05:31:08 UTC 2016

John Clark wrote:

<Mine didn't! Using common sense and classical physics as givens I proved
​that it was impossible to violate Bell's inequality, I then showed why
quantum mechanics said it could be violated and explained that the
experiment has been performed and there is no longer any doubt about it,
Bell's inequality IS violated.>

Nobody here claimed they disagreed with experimental results tested dozens
of times. Why are you arguing the value of a classically obtained
probability whose sole significance is that you claim it differs from the
quantum mechanical result? When both classically obtained probabilities
differ from the quantum mechanical result, it doesn't MATTER which of you
is right because both results support your own argument.

​John quoted me:
<> ​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?>

John replied:
​<No, but tell me what on earth "free will" means and I might want to
comment about it.>​

For shit's sake John, the definition is right there in the section of my
post that you quoted: ​"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[.]"

Let me reiterate. In the  thread "Humans losing freewill" I took the
trilemma you stated regarding the interpretation(s) of Bell's Inequality
i.e. "locality, realism, or determinism; you can't have all three."

I have reposted the contents here for your synchronization:

"In response to John's statement of the trilemma posed by Bell's Inequality:

In the context of QM, the distinction between determinism and locality is
largely epistemological. Determinism says that all effects have causes.
Localism says all local effects have local causes.

If the universe is infinite in extent, and that is the viewpoint that
modern cosmology is leaning toward, then under GR, almost all of the
universe is space-like separated from us.

This entails that we cannot sense it or communicate with it by any known
physical means. We can't even chronologically order the stuff that happens
“there" from the stuff that happens "here", so time becomes irrelevant.

However if locality is false, then that implies that all that all those
distant inscrutable events can nonetheless cause events here and now.

I think that the notion that some local events have causes too remote for
us to ever know and the notion that those same events have no cause at all
are empirically indistinguishable and therefore redundant.

Furthermore, one of the major loopholes in Bell's Inequality is
superdeterminism which is the idea that *everything* that happens has been
predestined to happen since the beginning of time including what variable
a researcher chooses to measure.

In that case, all the quantum weirdness disappears and the entangled
particles know which axis you are going to measure their spin or
polarization relative to because it has been scripted since the big bang
and you can't go off script.

With this in mind, I would rephrase the trilemma as: "local-determinism,
realism, or freewill; you can't have all three." With the understanding
that freewill in this instance being precisely defined as the idea that
you actually have a choice in what direction you orient the magnetic field
or polarizer when you conduct a entanglement experiment."

Stuart LaForge

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list