The Leggett–Garg inequality is a form of the Bell inequality as the CHSH inequality.
I would say that determinism and locality are related concepts. The two are joined sets with an overlap. It would be interesting to examine this. LC On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 4:36:51 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Bruce Kellett <bhke...@optusnet.com.au > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> >> >>> AT LEAST one of the following properties of that theory must be untrue: >>> 1) Determinism >>> 2) Locality >>> 3) Realism >> >> >> > >> You have repeated this claim several times, John, but it is not strictly >> true. Maudlin summarizes it like this: >> >> "Early on, Bell's result was often reported as ruling out *determinism*, >> or *hidden variables*. Nowadays, it is sometimes reported as ruling out, >> or at least calling in question, *realism*. But these are all mistakes. >> What Bell's theorem, together with the experimental results, proves to be >> impossible is not determinism or hidden variables or realism, but *locality, >> *in a perfectly clear sense*. *What Bell proved, and what theoretical >> physics has not yet properly absorbed, is that the physical world itself is >> non-local." >> a >> > > > He's right, Bell didn't rule > > out determinism > > or realism, > > but if you insist on both there is a > high > price that must be payed, non-locality > ; > but Maudlin > > can't seem to get a grip on Many worlds and can't decide if its a local > theory or not. And > B > ell isn't the only problem, we now know that the Leggett–Garg inequality > > is also violated and that means the non-locality must be even stranger. It > certainly seems to me, and Maudlin gave me no reason to think otherwise, > that if things are not realistic, if a photon is neither horizontally nor > vertically polarized until I measure it, if things don't fully exist till I > observe it them > , > then things can be local, although I would be unable even in principle to > determine > with 100% > certainty > what > the > electron will do because that depends on what I do and I won't know what > that is until I do it. > > He does mention the Superdeterminism > > loophole and I do admit you could have all 3 with that > , > but its hard for me to take it seriously because the the initial > conditions of the universe would have to be in a very very very specific > and rare state. Maybe the conditions 13.8 billion years ago were set up in > such a way that today I had to > place > my polarizing filter in a horizontal direction set up in such a way that > Bells inequality was violated but things are still local and realistic. > Maybe its pointless to even ask what would have happened it I had set it > vertically instead because there is no way I could have done it, it was > preordained 13.8 billion years ago that I would set it horizontally and > doing otherwise would violate the laws of deterministic physics. > Maybe the universe is a put up job set up just to fool us, but I doubt it. > > John K Clark > > > > >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
