Recent content by Mathematech

Bell's original proof of his inequality is based on what can be called a classical local hidden variable model which is only one very specific type of local realist model. If one defines "local realism" to mean the type of model Bell considered then yes, Bell's inequality and Aspects results...

Take a look at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51931411_Hidden_assumptions_in_the_derivation_of_the_Theorem_of_Bell the discussion on pages 3 - 4. They don't use the terminology "counterfactual definiteness" but what they mention relates. See also Ray Streaters comments in his book...

Experimental evidence is what claims that they are wrong. The experimental data does not obey Bell's inequality. The experimental data does not obey CHSH. Moreover the experimental data is not the suspect here, it is the assumptions in the proofs of BI and CHSH. One possibility is that the...

Proofs of CHSH use both counterfactual definiteness and locality. As with Bell's theorem the implication is thus again that either counterfactual definiteness is wrong, or locality is wrong or both, so what point are you trying to make? And let me add that as with Bell, you will find people...

No they don't! That's the whole point of it. QM leads to the correct inequality, his non-rigorous hand wavy stuff does not. Yet he uses the fact that it does not to claim that non-locality is necessary.

Read Bell, he makes statements like "quantum correlations are not locally explicable". He was not aware that a local theory could be anything other than a hidden variable model where one can integrate willy nilly.

Bell quite explicitly pushed the idea that non-locality is required to explain violation of his inequalities, while at the same time being unaware that there could be anything wrong with his hand wavy integration over lambda. I have been reading his papers and to me its mind blowing how...

For the arrangement I gave, for each n, form the ratio of evens to odds in the first n terms of the arrangement.

The point I was getting at with the natural numbers, take the arrangement I gave and calculate the average ratio of even to odd numbers for a large number of terms. It gives 1:2. Take the standard arrangement and you get 1:1. So what's the probability of getting an even number when randomly...

My conclusion is that it is NOT true that it is twice as likely to pick an odd number than an even ... is this what you are asking me to explain?

My point is, from what one reads every day in popular science articles and what one sees being asked on forums, it is not at all clear to the majority that Bell's theorem does not imply spooky action at a distance, quite the contrary, and this confusion was started by Bell. There are several...

Take a look at this paper for example https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51931411_Hidden_assumptions_in_the_derivation_of_the_Theorem_of_Bell The authors think that Bell probably didn't know of Boole's result but reading Bell, such as his discussion of Bertlmann's socks and comparisons...

Actually you have failed to understand just how much people like Boole and Kolmogorov did understand about sets of observables being incompatible and how this occurs even outside physics.

Bell was hardly a genius, his inequalities were a known result in Statistics going back to the work of George Boole and are not specific to hidden variable theories. He also had an agenda. The understanding of statisticians is that if data violates these inequalities then the observables have...

I want to discuss Streater's take that there is no need for assuming non-locality and that EPR etc can purely be understood via correct application of probability.