How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real • Hacker News Board

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#291

Post by desmosxxx » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:18 AM UTC

Kranar wrote: post #157

feoren wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I believe that entanglement is genuinely something new and interesting, your explanation of it simply feels like a semantic difference. There is no way in which the universe you describe would be different from a classical universe, at least up to the limits of your description. I'm simply "not allowed" to say that one of the balls is red and the other is blue, before I've looked? It's just, what, against the l…

OPs explanation is that entanglement is when there is a red ball and a blue ball and when you know which ball is red, you determine that the other ball must be blue. My explanation is that entanglement is when there is no red ball or blue ball, there are simply two balls and the color of both balls is both red and blue simultaneously. It's not simply that one ball is red, the other is blue, but we don't know which on…

Bell's experiment itself is readily understandable to most laypeople - and comparing the outcome to what you'd expect with e.g. hidden variables is really the easiest way to see why the red/blue explanation misses the point IMO.

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#292

Post by electrondood » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:19 AM UTC

danbmil99 wrote: post #285

tylerhou wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A classical analogy for entanglement: suppose I have two balls in a bag. They are identical in every way, except one is red and the other is blue. I randomly grab one in each hand and show my hands closed. Now the states of the ball are entangled: as soon as you see the color of one ball, that "determines" the color of the other. (Not claiming that this is a perfect analogy, but I don't see where it diverges from how…

The balls in a bag experiment is exactly the kind that does use hidden variables that are local. No information has to be transmitted in either direction. Bell showed that the correlation is even greater than you can get using that sort of thinking. Reality is more like this: Bob and Alice each get a pair of bags, one black and one white. They open one of the bags in which they get either a red ball or a blue ball. I…

This is an excellent analogy, thanks.

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#293

Post by Epokhe » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

danbmil99 wrote: post #285

tylerhou wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A classical analogy for entanglement: suppose I have two balls in a bag. They are identical in every way, except one is red and the other is blue. I randomly grab one in each hand and show my hands closed. Now the states of the ball are entangled: as soon as you see the color of one ball, that "determines" the color of the other. (Not claiming that this is a perfect analogy, but I don't see where it diverges from how…

The balls in a bag experiment is exactly the kind that does use hidden variables that are local. No information has to be transmitted in either direction. Bell showed that the correlation is even greater than you can get using that sort of thinking. Reality is more like this: Bob and Alice each get a pair of bags, one black and one white. They open one of the bags in which they get either a red ball or a blue ball. I…

Thanks for the example. Could you point me to a resource where it explains why the reality is like that? If that’s an implication of a formula of quantum theory(which the article also mentioned briefly), I would like to learn about it and be able to derive this implication myself.

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#294

Post by TheRealNGenius » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:21 AM UTC

UncleOxidant wrote: post #144

naasking wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is an assertion with no logic to justify it, the other is an assertion with a somewhat persuasive argument justifying it [1]. They are simply incomparable. [1] https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

But how is the simulation hypothesis not positing a "god" of some sort (some kind of super-intelligence that they claim is behind it all)? It seems like the simulation hypothesis is a theistic hypothesis. Or do they assume the simulation just evolved? Also, why the assumption that post-humans are running the simulations (as in the paper)? Couldn't it be any ultra-advanced civilization that's playing with an evolution…

It is. That's why the Big Bang is the scientific consensus.

Assuming any kind of simulation at all leads to more questions than answers - simply delegating the creation of the universe to the next turtle down. It's not a matter of how "persuasive" an argument is or isn't. It is the evidence the scientific method has produced from which we draw our conclusions.

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#295

Post by GoblinSlayer » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #158

feoren wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I respect people who believe in a bearded White omnipotent homophobic Go…

> Of the 3 assertions in the abstract, the obviously false one is #2: "Any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history". When you realize that running a simulation of the universe requires more processing power than is available in the universe, this is very obviously false. I think you've expressed a number of confusions. First, I think you co…

When the simulator shows a previously unseen object, it must first simulate all its history accounting for all effects to ensure that the shown state is legit and doesn't expose the conspiracy. This state should also account for all future investigations. The easiest way to achieve this is to run a precise simulation, so it doesn't save any resources.

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#296

Post by desmosxxx » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:30 AM UTC

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #287

PeterisP wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reviewing Bell's theorem - described in this article - has resulted in experimental evidence that all classic analogies in the style of "some state was embedded in each particle at the moment of entanglement and the measurement just revealed something about what was in that single particle locally at that time" can not be true. Bell's theorem describes the highest possible upper bound of correlations for spin measure…

The classical analogy don't model superposition, that's what violates Bell's inequalities, but it illustrates the correlation aspect of entanglement well.

Correlation aspect sure, but perhaps not the process lf entanglement

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#297

Post by GoblinSlayer » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:46 AM UTC

moedersmooiste wrote: post #26

dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: post #6

Or Superdeterminism is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

I'm no expert but I also lean toward superdeterminism. It's either that or the universe is not deterministic at all. Believing that the universe is only partly deterministic is the same as believing someone can be partly pregnant.

As I understand, superdeterminism isn't the same as determinism. Normally Bell's theorem would tell you that it's determinism, but a deterministic system still can arbitrarily end up with skewed statistics and thus look like anything and you can't expose it because it's skewed in a specific way. That's superdeterminism, it looks like not what it is by pure chance.

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#298

Post by samecouldbesaid » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:53 AM UTC

gilbetron wrote: post #241

dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: post #6

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.

Same can be said about Quantum Mechanics

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#299

Post by samecouldbesaid » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 6:06 AM UTC

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #297

moedersmooiste wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert but I also lean toward superdeterminism. It's either that or the universe is not deterministic at all. Believing that the universe is only partly deterministic is the same as believing someone can be partly pregnant.

As I understand, superdeterminism isn't the same as determinism. Normally Bell's theorem would tell you that it's determinism, but a deterministic system still can arbitrarily end up with skewed statistics and thus look like anything and you can't expose it because it's skewed in a specific way. That's superdeterminism, it looks like not what it is by pure chance.

Superdeterminism is still determinism but an idea added to it for all particles sharing all future states. Superdeterminism is against the idea of real-time processing while Quantum Mechanics is typically imagined as real-time processing. Sure, determinism can illustrate a deterministic system producing infinite universes that are deterministically operating every possibility imaginable, where a local subject could get the impression things aren’t deterministic while they indeed are if viewing the whole system non-locally and that with what you’re describing doesn’t really fit the expression of chance.

Re: How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real

#300

Post by samecouldbesaid » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 6:19 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #111

themgt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've quoted it before but I will again just because I hate superdeterminism so much: First, the logical flow: Bell’s theorem proves that no local, realistic theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. It does so by considering a very specific situation of entangled particles being measured by spin detectors set at different angles. Critically, the angles of these spin detectors are assumed to be set in…

> I can only reply that yes, it’s possible. I cannot prove it wrong. But I can find it unreasonable. And I would be tempted to call these people philosophically desperate. I'd be tempted to call those people closet theists who are in denial, but maybe you're more polite than I am. What I mean is that they have something in their system that is playing a god-like role, but they're "scientific", so it can't be God. By…

Your argument is kind of hand wavy and while the same can be argued about quantum mechanics if not attempting to give the theory much thought. Similar to who you’re replying to as well. There exists a few ways that superdeterminism can make a universe such as our own while making humans believe in quantum mechanics and similar to the few ways that quantum mechanics can make a universe like our own with humans believing in superdeterminism. Both theories use logic to express how they do it and the only significant difference is real-time processing vs predeterminism.