On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:05:59 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 9:17 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> BTW, the Ignorance Hypothesis trivially implies Realism.* *It makes little difference with the ignorance hypothesis implied because it's not true. What the winners of the 2022 Nobel prize proved is that the universe (or multiverse) is either non-local or non-realistic or both. I think it's probably local but non-realistic, Many Worlds is local but non-realistic.* *But you continue to refuse to support the key unproven postulate with your infatuation with MW; specifically, if some event is possible to happen, why must it necessarily happen? If there's a winner in a horse race, why must there be a race in which each of losers wins? It's quite of huge extrapolation and AFAICT, completely unsupported. And please don't appeal to Schrodinger's equation as your proof. If all we need is some equation to prove a point, I could refer to ME's and claim the EM field is continuous. AG* *BTW, if a theory is non-realistic, meaning the properties of some entity which are measured, do not exist prior to the measurement, what would it mean for the theory to also be local? I don't see what "local" could mean in the context of non-realistic. TY, AG* On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 5:46:38 AM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 1:16 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> Why PRECISELY is the Ignorance Interpretation false?* *In science it's impossible to ever be 100% certain that something is true, but you can be 100% certain that something is false. We can be 100% certain that the naïve ignorance interpretation is false because it fails the all important experimental test. It makes the wrong prediction. I already pointed that out in my long post about Bell's Inequality. * *If you want to know if the ignorance interpretation is true or false you can't just sit in your arm chair and think about it, you've got to get your hands dirty and perform an experiment. People have performed such an experiment, and received the Nobel Prize in 2022 for doing so, and the ignorance hypothesis, at least the naïve version that involves local hidden variables, fell flat on its face. * That's exactly what I wanted to know; I was even going to suggest it myself; whether Bell experiments falsify the Ignorance Hypothesis. BTW, the Ignorance Hypothesis trivially implies Realism. AG -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/738006e7-71be-44b7-a7d5-c1b6d94d95c9n%40googlegroups.com.
