Perhaps you would care to provide a quote from EPR that backs this up. FYI, here are the actual last 4 sentences of EPR. Note that the last 3 are now known to be WRONG and this is what got us debating in the first place.ttn said:The whole point of the EPR argument is to show that ***if*** you assume that QM is complete, the theory violates locality. Completeness entails non-locality.
"This makes the reality of P and Q depend on the process of measurement carried out on the first system, that does not affect the second system in any way."
(This is standard Copenhagen interpretation. It is also a way of saying that reality is observer dependent. Please note that this applies equally in any test of QED in which the HUP is used. The HUP tells us that reality IS observer dependent.)
"No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this."
(This is an ad hoc assumption and is not warranted from the argument presented in EPR.)
"While we have thus shown that the wave function does not provide a complete description of the physical reality, we left open the question of whether or not such a description exists."
(This deduction is invalid because the previous sentence is unwarranted. The correct conclusion is that EITHER QM is incomplete, OR there is not simultaneous reality to non-commuting observables. This correct conclusion was stated earlier in EPR.)
"We believe, however, that such a theory is possible."
(Because of Bell, we now know that NO such theory is possible, regardless of Einstein's faith in the matter. R.I.P. Local reality.)