On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:51 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Superdeterminism is extremely unlikely, regardless of what 't Hooft says. That is also my opinion, my strong opinion. It seems very contrived that the initial conditions of the universe were set up in exactly the right way for it to fool us forever. I am reminded of Einstein who said "*Nature is subtle but not malicious*". > *Locality is certainly ruled out.* Local hidden variables are ruled out if nature is realistic. > *Bell's result is a theorem, not a conjecture. * Yes, Bell's inequality is a theorem that can be derived using just high school algebra starting from the assumptions that things are local and things are realistic. *> And that theorem is valid in MWI as in all other interpretations.* If that were true then the MWI and all other quantum interpretations must be dead wrong because exparament has proven beyond doubt that Bell's inequality is WRONG. The high school algebra used to derive it is not wrong therefore one or more of the assumptions it is based on must be wrong. Many Worlds predicts that Bell's Inequality would fail an experimental test because Many Worlds does not assume realism. > *I don't know what you mean by 'realism'. * If realism is true then things, like the spin of an electron or the polarization of a photon, exist even when they are not being observed and they always exist in one and only one definite state. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0p-eN5hWeesk4ZUOefLtZuX_9E6JSWcEk76pmTMhCSpQ%40mail.gmail.com.
