On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 1:50 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 5:31 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>>>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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *>>> But my point was that Bell did not assume counterfactual >>>> definiteness.* >>>> >>> >>> >>That was your point?? You just said "*I can provide many references >>> which claim that Bell did assume counterfactual definiteness*"! >>> >> >> *> You are trolling again.* >> > > Mr. Kellett, please go fuck yourself. > When a person deliberately deletes relevant context in order to ridicule a statement, it is called trolling. > >> *All he *[Bell] *assumed was that any possible hidden variables were >>>> local. So it is locality that is disproven by the experimental results. >>>> Nothing about counterfactual definiteness or realism, since Bell did not >>>> assume either of these things*. >>>> >>> >>> You and Maudlin may believe that but it is certainly a minority >>> viewpoint: >>> >>> *"The dependability of counterfactually definite values is a basic >>> assumption, which, together with "time asymmetry" and "local causality" led >>> to the Bell inequalities. Bell showed that the results of experiments >>> intended to test the idea of hidden variables would be predicted to fall >>> within certain limits based on all three of these assumptions"* >>> >> >> *> That is false*. >> > > So Wikipedia says one thing and world class authority on Quantum Mechanics > Bruce > Kellett says the oposite (see reference below). I will let others on this > list decide for themselves which one is more likely to be correct, > I think the real issue here is that you are clearly unable to show how and where Bell assumed counterfactual definiteness, and how that was a crucial ingredient in the proof of his inequality. When you think about it, 'counterfactual definiteness', as you have defined it in terms of a particular concept of realism, amounts to nothing more than a particular hidden variable. Namely, the value of the spin projection that exists before measurement. So when Bell, in order to derive his inequality, assumes that any possible hidden variable is local, and that inequality is violated by experiment, what is ruled out is any form of local hidden variable. 'Realistic' or 'counterfactually definite' variables are automatically included. So there is no need for a separate assumption about such things. Consequently, dropping counterfactual definiteness does not evade Bell's general conclusion. That is why I can be so definite about saying that your interpretation is false. The Wikipedia definition of counterfactual definiteness is fine -- it is more general than yours, but that does not matter. It is still not something that Bell assumed, so saying that quantum mechanics, or many-worlds, or whatever, does not honour counterfactual definiteness has absolutely no impact ion Bell's result. Besides, The correct answer in physics, as in anything else, is obtained by logical argument, not by appeals to authority or citing non-authoratative Wikipedia articles. The truth is not decided by the majority opinion. 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/CAFxXSLQdKvM9pJCNFa2do-Gz2mtgbR-sH5gmjCXXwVE6F27pfA%40mail.gmail.com.
