Bohr's solution to the EPR paradox

[OCR]

Thus all states follow from the state of the big bang, right?

Maybe... right ? .. .

 

[Zafa Pi]

Well, that's a mistake. It's an application of a generalization.

In spite of that not being the prevailing view, and not treated in the vast majority of texts, I see your point.

 

[Zafa Pi]

Maybe... right ? .. .

The big bang knew you would say that.

 

[OCR]

The big bang knew you would say that.

I know.....

 

[ueit]

Thus all states follow from the state of the big bang, right?

Yes, that is a direct implication (of course under the assumption that classical physics, say EM + GR are a fundamental, correct description of nature). Classical physics is also reversible so you could calculate the state at the big bang from the present one, if the required data would be available.

 

[Zafa Pi]

Your answer to

Thus all states follow from the state of the big bang, right?

was

Yes, that is a direct implication (of course under the assumption that classical physics, say EM + GR are a fundamental, correct description of nature). Classical physics is also reversible so you could calculate the state at the big bang from the present one, if the required data would be available.

but earlier when I said

I think your position in this post is referred to as superdeterminism. That is not the prevailing view of CT, rather it is local determinism.

you said

This is false. Classical determinism implies that any state follows uniquely from a past state. Classical EM is like that. This is not a controversial position at all.

Now I refer you to https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...minism-and-bells-theorem.914439/#post-5761059
Then why all the controversy?

 

[OCR]

BTW... you are welcome !

Thanks for the question mark?

 

[ueit]

Your answer to
was
but earlier when I said
you said

Now I refer you to https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...minism-and-bells-theorem.914439/#post-5761059
Then why all the controversy?

Look, do you deny that determinism implies that the present state follows uniquely from the past state? If so, please define what you mean by determinism, and state clearly if you think that in classical EM the state at a certain time is or it is not determined by the past state of the system.

As long as I didn't make use of any assumption other than the properties of classical EM I feel no need to go into the subject of superdeterminism. We can if you want, but at this point is not necessary.

 

[Zafa Pi]

Look, do you deny that determinism implies that the present state follows uniquely from the past state?

Look, all I was doing was pointing out there was controversy that you were denying. I'm merely a simple mathematician that believes in the axiom of choice. IMO determinism is an idea about reality (yuck) that's not even wrong.

 

[ueit]

Look, all I was doing was pointing out there was controversy that you were denying. I'm merely a simple mathematician that believes in the axiom of choice. IMO determinism is an idea about reality (yuck) that's not even wrong.

This is what determinism is, according to Laplace:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."

Classical electrodynamics is such a theory. Both the concept of determinism and the formulation of classical electrodynamics predate Bell's theorem and his invented word "superdeterminism" so your attempt to change the subject in that direction makes little sense.

"Free choice" is not an axiom of classical electromagnetism so I find it irrelevant to this discussion. In fact I doubt there is any place for this concept in any physical theory, quantum mechanics included.

The fact that you believe that determinism is wrong is again irrelevant. I'm not arguing here that it is true (although I do believe so). What I am trying to argue is that in classical electromagnetism you cannot have isolated systems in the way you want. So, can you please make a clear statement about your opinion on this? Can you provide an example of physical system that is described by classical electrodynamics and yet can be shown to consist of two subsystems that are isolated in the way you envision?

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.

Edit by @DrClaude: this thread was going nowhere and will stay closed.