On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:01 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
*> I can provide many references which claim that Bell did assume > counterfactual definiteness, and this is the reason why his theorem does > not apply in many-worlds theory. One prominent example is a paper by > Baylock (arXiv:0902.3827).* > The abstract says "*The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell's inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness*", so if Bell can derive his Inequality from those assumptions but exparament proves that the Inequality is not true then one or both of those assumptions must be false. That was Bell's entire point, he proposed an exparament to determine if the assumptions were true or not. It turned out they were not. > > *Baylock thinks that counterfactual definiteness is one of the minimal > assumptions behind the derivation of Bell's inequality.* > Of course he thinks that, everybody thinks that! > *But Baylock's attempt to show exactly how Bell's supposed assumption of > counterfactual definiteness led him astray* Led Astray? Bell knew exactly what he was assuming, and Baylock's paper came out 10 years ago but it might just as well have fallen into a Black Hole for all the effect it had on the physics community. It wasn't exactly earth shattering. > *> You equate 'realism' with counterfactual definiteness. That means, of > course, that quantum mechanics is not a realist theory -- which is a rather > extreme view, given the empirical success of the theory.* > What the hell?! When quantum physicists use the term "not realistic" it has a precise technical meaning, they do not mean the theory does not fit the empirical facts, and they are not talking about a Harry Potter story. John K Clark > To claim that it does not represent reality is a rather absurd claim. > Maudlin (arXiv:1408.1826) points out that it has become fashionable to say > that another way to avoid Bell's result and retain locality is to abandon > 'realism'. I think you have said much the same on occasion. Maudlin goes on > "But such claims never manage to make clear at the same time just what > 'realism' is supposed to be, and just how Bell's derivation presupposes it." > > I think it is better to stick to the commonly accepted view of scientific > realism -- the definition I previously gave from Wikipedia. In which case, > as Carroll and most others claim, many-worlds is the paradigm 'realist' > approach to quantum mechanics the wave function encapsulates what the > external world is 'really' like. > > Bruce > > -- > 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/CAFxXSLQTsieML37v4BbPSW21xcq6uharz%2Bo1QD4%2Bj5S81jf7vQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQTsieML37v4BbPSW21xcq6uharz%2Bo1QD4%2Bj5S81jf7vQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAJPayv0AemAUE8CLo35s5C0-KpNM7tQ8YK0fNB049qBY%2BUWBiA%40mail.gmail.com.
