No relativistic Bohmian mechanics and superluminal causation

[weirdoguy]

Can you cite a proof that 2+2=4?

You haven't heared of Peano axioms, have you...

 

[martinbn]

Can you cite a proof that 2+2=4?

"Principia Mathematica" - B. Russell, A.N. Whitehead (Vol 2 page 86) prove that 1+1=2. It is an immediate corollary that 2+2 =4.

 

[sahashmi]

"Principia Mathematica" - B. Russell, A.N. Whitehead (Vol 2 page 86) prove that 1+1=2. It is an immediate corollary that 2+2 =4.

You’re missing the point. In order to prove that 2+2=4, you first need axioms that can’t be proven. Instantaneous causation implies that A does not occur before B but A causes B. But causality implies time. You can redefine causality in such a way where A occurs at the same time as B or where A occurs before B. But this is nonsensical. You can also redefine 2 to mean something else such that it violates 2+2 equalling 4.

You haven't heared of Peano axioms, have you...

You also missed the point presumably

 

[PeterDonis]

In order to prove that 2+2=4, you first need axioms that can’t be proven.

Yes, any proof eventually comes down to axioms that must be accepted without proof. That means that choosing axioms is an important part of constructing any system of propositions. You don't appear to have grasped that essential point.

causality implies time.

Says who? Have you proved this? Or are you proposing it as an axiom? On what grounds?:

You can redefine causality in such a way where A occurs at the same time as B or where A occurs before B. But this is nonsensical.

Why? It's certainly not as nonsensical as defining "2" to be something else.

You also missed the point presumably

From what I can see, you are the one who is missing quite a bit in the dogmatic claims you are making.

 

[sahashmi]

Yes, any proof eventually comes down to axioms that must be accepted without proof. That means that choosing axioms is an important part of constructing any system of propositions. You don't appear to have grasped that essential point.


Says who? Have you proved this? Or are you proposing it as an axiom? On what grounds?:


Why? It's certainly not as nonsensical as defining "2" to be something else.


From what I can see, you are the one who is missing quite a bit in the dogmatic claims you are making.

Why is it more nonsensical than redefining what 2 means? 2 is literally human language. You can easily redefine it to mean what 3 refers to.

On the other hand, can you give one single example of causation where A doesn’t occur before B? It’s easy to speculate on things but give me the science. Give me a real world example.

 

[DrChinese]

Give me one single, observable example where A causes B and A doesn’t occur before B. This is science. We don’t just get to idly speculate
...
Show me an example of causation where A causes B and A doesn’t occur before B. Causation fundamentally requires time...

Of course, you will probably dismiss these experiments - since you have an obviously entrenched position on cause and effect. But here is exactly what you asked for (concrete and observable), and the most obvious explanation of these experiments is that effects can precede a cause. Exactly the opposite of what you say.

Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations

All delayed choice experiments feature A causing B and A occurs after B. Note that there are interpretations of QM that seek to explain this class of experiments in other ways. Nonetheless, all of these follow orthodox QM, and this paper is a decade old.

 

[PeterDonis]

can you give one single example of causation where A doesn’t occur before B?

If measurements on quantum entanglement are examples of causation, then any such measurements which are spacelike separated are examples of causation where A doesn't occur before B in at least some frames.

 

[DrChinese]

I will say though: QM doesn’t need spooky action at a distance. All correlations can be explained by (currently unobserved) superluminal influences as well, although they must be super fast

Out of deference to @pines-demon, I am replying in this active thread rather than the other old one.

What is the difference between “spooky action at a distance” (which I think is a fair description of quantum nonlocality) and “superluminal influences”? They seem to be mostly overlapping. Either one could apply. Are you using “superluminal” to mean v>c but not instantaneous?

If so: There are plenty of experiments that imply speed or velocity of action (assuming there is action I guess) cannot be defined. A great one is Megidish et al (2012) in which there is delayed entanglement swapping, and one of the entangled photons (1) ceases to exist before the other (4) is even created.

Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

How would you calculate/associate speed in that case?