Or Superdeterminism is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
If Superdeterminism is true, we can't help it if we believe in it or not.
How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
241–250 of 356 posts
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet you could make your points without insulting others. What do you think?
I think my tone was no different than naasking's.
Yeah, saying I think you're likely confused, as I did, is not remotely the same as calling subjects that interest some people "insane drivel", or "utterly ridiculous nonsense". You definitely need to recalibrate your scale IMO.
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
there are many ways to explain the result and all are extremely strange. particles communicating at FTL speeds? particles actually touching in an unknown dimension?
It is also strange, but I think the many worlds hypothesis makes the most sense to me. Then there is no spooky action at a distance, the observer is just always in a particular version of reality that all states, even distant ones, conform to. I am not a physicist!
All the states are already there, they just share the have value before they have split
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Everything is really under control of invisible stuff" make it impossible to use parisomy under any circumstances. It fundamentally discards Occam's Razor. You are fundamentally misunderstanding Occam's Razor. It is not a law - Occam's Razor is a preference for how to view the world, not a law that was violated. [1] There are alternate rules-of-thumb, such as one by Ockham's contemporary, Walter Chatton. Chatton c…
You are fundamentally misunderstanding Occam's Razor. It is not a law - Occam's Razor is a preference for how to view the world, not a law that was violated. Yes, Occam's Razor isn't a law but a method of understanding reality. My point is that if you throw out Occam's Razor in total, not in one or another situations, you're left with nothing to understand the world with. The "God wants it that ways" and "because it'…
> The generally means that adding unneeded hypotheses should generally be avoided.
This is the logical fallacy with what you wrote. You don't know what is needed or unneeded.
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe in Copenhagen, you will try to figure out how to reconcile unitary evolution with wave function collapse. This is saying the interpretations "exist". The interpretation like intermediate values in some calculation process that are never returned. If the interpretations are true, they can be seen, not just "locally". It seems like a lot of this basically involves people who've "suspended disbelief" prov…
I am not really sure what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the difference between an interpretation as a way of thinking about something and an interpretation as describing what something really is? It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause t…
"Interpretation", in the way that Copenhagen and Many-worlds are called interpretation, is just a way to add human meaning to an existing formalism. Like adding the label "energy" whatever quantity in Newtonian mechanics.
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can not use QM for faster-than-light communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
U.S. Department of Energy unveils blueprint for the quantum internet: https://news.fnal.gov/2020/07/u-s-department-of-energy-unvei... Fermilab and partners achieve sustained, high-fidelity quantum teleportation: https://news.fnal.gov/2020/12/fermilab-and-partners-achieve-...
Apologies that I don't have time right now to clarify further, but I highly suggest you read the Wiki for entanglement and then reread the articles with that context.
These simply do not do what you think they do. Information cannot, under any currently theorized model of physics, be transmitted faster than light.
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
so true. I have a similar beef about the popular explanation for uncertainty principle: "well you see the light hits the particle very hard so we know where it was but we don't know where its gone now". urgh.
As someone who doesn't know any better than the explanation you have a beef with, I would love if you could explain in layman's terms why it's wrong and what a more accurate understanding is. I always thought that analogy was exactly how it worked, but it seems I have been misled unawares.
It presupposes that position and momentum have definite states that are just uncertain to us, while in most interpretations of quantum mechanics (e.g. Copenhagen and many worlds) the particle exists as a wavefunction, lacking a specific position or momentum, but instead existing as a probability density function in this space.
The uncertainty principle here then relates to how much this probability density function 'peaks' in position space or momentum space. A higher peak in one space results in a wider spread in the other. This is because position and momentum are Fourier transforms of each other.
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as a lay person, I think the difference might be that it's specifically about local hidden variables. If two particles are coupled, there's no per-particle hidden variable?
edit-too-late-to-edit: I remembered something that makes me think it's actually more complicated. If I write 0 and 1 on two different pieces of paper, then flip a coin to decide which paper to give you, we have "entangled" unknowns. When I reveal my paper, we instantly know what's on yours. The joint distribution can't be described per-particle, but we don't consider it spooky. So I think there's something more to it…
Because your example does not contain superpositions. With entanglement the pieces of paper are both 0 and 1 at the same time until they are observed - and only then is it that the superposition of both particles become resolved.
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding Occam's Razor. It is not a law - Occam's Razor is a preference for how to view the world, not a law that was violated. Yes, Occam's Razor isn't a law but a method of understanding reality. My point is that if you throw out Occam's Razor in total, not in one or another situations, you're left with nothing to understand the world with. The "God wants it that ways" and "because it'…
The reason "magicians" succeed is because Occam's razor is a heuristic that we rely on intuitively. When the real explanation is super-complex, like "this magician spent 8 hours a day for months learning to hold a hidden card in an invisible way, followed by a year of engineering an under-the-stage lift hidden by mirrors, the reality isn't "disproved" by Occam's razor. Same thing if someone engineers a super complica…
The reason "magicians" succeed is because Occam's razor is a heuristic that we rely on intuitively. When the real explanation is super-complex, like "this magician spent 8 hours a day for months learning to hold a hidden card in an invisible way, followed by a year of engineering an under-the-stage lift hidden by mirrors, the reality isn't "disproved" by Occam's razor.
Sure. But if the entirety of reality is created by magicians, then one's concept of reality collapses. The "simulation" view point is indeed pretty much the idea that magicians control everything.
If you read the argument above, my point isn't that Occam's Razor is always correct but if you posit a world where it is generally/always incorrect, your ability to coherently understand reality collapses.
Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real
#250I'm not a Physicist. From what I understand, Bell's theorem only covers local hidden-variables and that this can still be explained using non-local theories like Bohm's. Can someone shed a bit of light on the non-local theories and if Bell's theorem addresses those as well?