On Wednesday, December 23, 2020 at 1:45:06 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 6:36:53 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > >> On Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 12:52:26 AM UTC-7 Bruce wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 5:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/19/2020 10:38 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>>> >>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:48 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> As far as I know, it was Born who came up with the interpretation of >>>>> the equations as expressing probabilities. But there was (and maybe >>>>> still >>>>> is) controversy over whether this was irreducibly random or whether there >>>>> were hidden variables and it was just the randomness of ignorance. For >>>>> most physicists this was resolved by the experimental confirmation of the >>>>> violation of Bell inequalities. At that point the choice was irreducible >>>>> randomness or nonlocal effects >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is not quite right. The choice is not between randomnesss and >>>> non-locality. Non-local hidden variables (Bohm) do reduce the apparent >>>> randomness to ignorance of the detailed quantum state, but at the price of >>>> non-locality. Bell's result implies that non-locality is unavoidable, and >>>> this has nothing to do with the presence or absence of intrinsic >>>> randomness. >>>> >>>> >>>> If there were not intrinsic randomness then the extra correlation of >>>> that violates Bell's inequality could be used to signal faster than light. >>>> >>> >>> >>> True, but irrelevant to what I said. There is no theory that gives a >>> local account of the Bell correlations. Intrinsic randomness guarantees no >>> FTL signalling. This seems to rule out local deterministic theories. >>> >> >> *Intrinsic randomness guarantees no FTL signaling. Wow! That's a >> breathtaking claim. How is it justified? What is the argument? TIA, AG * >> > > *I'm not disputing your claim. But it's hugely profound, if true. Can you > say something, anything about how you've reached this conclusion? TIA, AG * > *Maybe your claim is so profound that it's sacrilege to say anything about it? Could be. AG * > >>> Bruce >>> >>>> It is only deterministic theories like MWI and Bohm that eliminate >>>> randomness, but MWI does not solve the locality issue either. Besides, MWI >>>> is incompatible with the Born Rule; and the Born rule, while consistent >>>> with Bohm, cannot be derived from Bohmian mechanics. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> and most physicists saw randomness as the more likely, less disruptive >>>>> choice. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> -- 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/5b2b3d3b-2f1c-47ac-b398-fe0f74f9a0a3n%40googlegroups.com.
