Quantum Bayesian Interpretation of QM

[bhobba]

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.

Its well known non locality is not required by simply abandoning that objects have properties independent of measurement context. Bells theorem proves, and its pretty watertight, you can't have locality and objects having properties.

Thats about all there is really.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Ilja]

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.

I have criticized some points of Streater's texts at http://ilja-schmelzer.de/realism/dBBarguments.php.

I think that realism - in the sense of what has been used, except locality, by Bell to prove his inequalities - is a simple minimal standard of explanation. If you are unable to desciribe some observation using a realistic theory, you have not understood or explained it.

That these assumptions about realism are, really, such a minimal standard of explanation, is, of course, an argument which can be discussed. In particular, by thinking about what "explanations" become possible if we weaken one or another part of this minimal standard. Roughly speaking, you cannot weaken realism without accepting, after this, "and then a miracle happens" as a valid explanation.

 

[Ilja]

Its well known non locality is not required by simply abandoning that objects have properties independent of measurement context.

No, that's wrong. Looks like the classical error of identifying the conclusions of the first part of Bell's proof (the EPR part) with assumptions made by Bell.

What has to be assumed is realism, in a very weak sense. The reality λ should not even consist of localized objects, it can be whatever you can imagine.