danieltanfh95 said:
So my question really is this: why and how did it all get so confusing with faster-than-light communication, superdeterminism or other exotic interpretations when it is something quite trivial to understand, or does my explanation above constitute some new theorem (because if so, I’m not even sure what the core thesis is).
danieltanfh95 said:
The problem is that folks revert to classical mental models (demanding CFD, expecting classical factorization, treating particles as labelled objects) and then generate pseudo-questions like FTL propagation to resolve puzzles that only arise under those classical commitments.
...
Which brings me to the second point, which I think is the crux of the problem. To me, Reichenbach's PCC in terms of classical probabilities is a poor representation of common cause as a philosophical concept since it does not cover the QM case. However, people seem to be hung up on the mathematical representation and then use that classical representation to somehow capture the whole meaning of common cause.
Agree. I personally think the heart of the problem is many stick to a paradigm of understanding natures interactions and ontology that whose "span" constraints our understanding. I think how nature actually works is outside the scope of the current paradigm. Sticking to the paradigm, is respnsible for many apparent pathologies. The pathologies is in our understanding.
danieltanfh95 said:
People are still in denial over the fact that we need to generalise or update our priors on every mathematical representation of philosophical content we have (as long as the logic is rational).
Agree.
danieltanfh95 said:
I'm having trouble understanding the motivation for shoehorning classical commitments or classical probabilities into quantum mechanics.
Just to play the devils advocated: I think thinking outside the de facto existing paradigm is very difficult, as all your ponderings and are often constrained by the logic allowed by the paradigm. Some sort of violations is necessary to break out. Also in any learning process, some element of conservatism is also rational for stability.
But sooner or later the possibility that we are seeking in the wrong forest should come onto the currently prioritised reflections.
(But the generalization into quanutm logic is not complete, much of that has still flaws of old thinking, so there is no answer yet)
pines-demon said:
The fact that we already have two pages and most of it is clarifying the interpretations or semantics shows why Bell's theorem is controversial. Again the experimental results and theory is cut and clear, it is the interpretative conclusion that creates these conversations.
I agree. For me personally the issues is settled with: Nothing wrong with the theorem, neither do i find the attempts at finding loopholes rational.
Instead, I think the theory space to which Bells theorem applies to, does not contains the correct theory for nature. That's my takeaway from Bell's theorem.
Nugatory said:
But when we ask the analogous question of a quantum system, there’s nothing well-understood and non-controversial underneath.
Agree, if we understand quantum mechanics as a statisical "macro model"; our understanding of what "really happens" (in some appropriate paragidm) is missing.
I think that ongoing missiion is a valid one, but the focal point of all this is not "Bells theorem", its loopholes nor the tradtiional bell-system diagnostics. I think no progress will be made trying to analyse bells thereom over and over again. After all bells own definition of non-locality are not very useful for forward work at all, except as historical comparasions.
I think the focus should be on what are the generalized laws/logic that replace the old style dynamical laws and old style statistical inferences? And most likely the answer we dont yet have will required a modified paradigm of natures ontology and interactions.
/Fredrik
