- #36
- 8,938
- 2,945
N88 said:Alice's knowledge is a property of Alice's consciousness.
Well, yes. But for a property of Alice's consciousness to count as knowledge, it has to be about something in the real world. In this case, it's about the outcome of Bob's future measurement.
Given the correlation of the photons, the correlation of the detectors and her knowledge of physics: Alice can anticipate the outcome that will soon be known to Bob.
In other words, she can deduce something about Bob from (1) the initial conditions of the EPR, together with (2) her observations.
Predicting a future test result means that you know something about the future reaction of a photon when tested by a detector. False realism is to have an over-developed sense of realism (based on an inappropriate classicality - from a typical classical-world-view) and attribute the outcome (H-polarization) to the pre-test photon.
The issue is: When Alice makes an observation of her photon, does she learn something about Bob's future measurement result that she didn't know already?
Paraphrasing Zeilinger, "This inference to classicality is based on a mis-interpretation (an inappropriate classically-based interpretation) of the information. If you don't assume this, you don't need nonlocality."
I can't make any sense of that, which is why I'm trying to understand what you (and Zeilinger) mean by that.
Our discussion might be helped by the mathematical answer to this question: How do you move from LHS of Bell's (1964) equation (3) to the RHS?
I'm not talking about Bell's theorem, I'm asking about the nature of Alice's knowledge of Bob's future measurement result. Is that knowledge about the physical world, or not?