4 ms·

Yes, yes, it's very cute to couch a belief in imaginary worm holes through dimension X behind bland jargon like variable scoping. And yes, just last month, inc

Yes, yes, it's very cute to couch a belief in imaginary worm holes through dimension X behind bland jargon like variable scoping. And yes, just last month, incontrovertible evidence that with the knowledge of a particle's spin at site A, I can instantaneously infer another particle's spin at site B and always be correct. So magical. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature15759.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/full/nature1... But not because the particle landing at site B had already possessed a spin we could not measure at the time of emission. No! The spin was all things to all people when emitted, and would remain as such until after we so courteously ask site A's particle to reveal its spin! Bell says that the spin instantaneously traveled through a worm hole, across space and time, whispering in the ear of the site B particle, so that it could poof! Change it's mind! Bell says no unknowable secrets allowed. Bell says everyone can have everything. Bell says it's not because of something we can't determine. Bell says it's because of a special message transmitted in a way no one can intercept. Not even him! Bell says we must have our love notes dictated to us after they are sent, and only then may true love be known! Until then, the notes are written in all languages, as both hate and love, war and peace! Bell says Bob won't love Alice until Alice loves Bob! That Bob's note re-writes itself before his love can be unrequited because Bob refuses to get dumped!

wellyWellyWell 11y ago
To sum up, with less snark, because I'm not directing the snark at you... It's directed at Bell, as posthumous snark, since I'm sure he won't feel it. Anyway, I don't ascribe to the school of thought that tells us that simply because superposition works on paper, that such a predictive tool accurately reflects events occurring in reality. It may help us, to understand and deal with curious events, but Bell hasn't accomplished anything profound in making his pronouncements. All he did was insist that people shift conceptual placeholders about, to help reorganize a mental model for imagining representations of an idea. To regard his hand-wavy declarations as a crystallized description of reality is nonsense. Ask this: If something cannot be touched, known or inferred, then how can he assert that reality reshapes itself in reverse upon reaching an event, or that an untouchable relationship persists behind the facade or our reality? Furthermore, his arguments are pure semantics. One is not allowed to presume independent unrelated inaccessible slots, one must assume related inaccessible slots. Even though the relationship of the slots is not actually revealed until after it no longer matters whether there was a relationship or not. Oh, and by the way, that relationship transcends reality as we know it, possibly implying a parallel channel of communication, external to our world. Sure, so much better than just stating that there is information missing from our representational model at certain moments in the sequence of events.
- justifier 11y ago
  i am always confused when bell comes up and people use it as an argument for 'the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics' as i stated in my comment defending your original skepticism: 'i find that science as a verb often is the act of discovering previous understandings were inadequate to describe phenomena' bell's inequality was a direct response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox which wanted to assert philosophically the inadequacy of quantum mechanics conversely bell shows empirically the inadequacy of classical mechanics which seems uncontroversial.. how many times historically have we shown contemporary classical mechanics to be wanting? bell, to me, simply says if you wish to find relation between bodies associated with classical mechanics and bodies associated with quantum mechanics you are going to have to do better, and i'd argue.. on both fronts

wellyWellyWell 11y ago

To sum up, with less snark, because I'm not directing the snark at you... It's directed at Bell, as posthumous snark, since I'm sure he won't feel it. Anyway, I don't ascribe to the school of thought that tells us that simply because superposition works on paper, that such a predictive tool accurately reflects events occurring in reality. It may help us, to understand and deal with curious events, but Bell hasn't accomplished anything profound in making his pronouncements. All he did was insist that people shift conceptual placeholders about, to help reorganize a mental model for imagining representations of an idea. To regard his hand-wavy declarations as a crystallized description of reality is nonsense. Ask this: If something cannot be touched, known or inferred, then how can he assert that reality reshapes itself in reverse upon reaching an event, or that an untouchable relationship persists behind the facade or our reality? Furthermore, his arguments are pure semantics. One is not allowed to presume independent unrelated inaccessible slots, one must assume related inaccessible slots. Even though the relationship of the slots is not actually revealed until after it no longer matters whether there was a relationship or not. Oh, and by the way, that relationship transcends reality as we know it, possibly implying a parallel channel of communication, external to our world. Sure, so much better than just stating that there is information missing from our representational model at certain moments in the sequence of events.

justifier 11y ago
i am always confused when bell comes up and people use it as an argument for 'the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics' as i stated in my comment defending your original skepticism: 'i find that science as a verb often is the act of discovering previous understandings were inadequate to describe phenomena' bell's inequality was a direct response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox which wanted to assert philosophically the inadequacy of quantum mechanics conversely bell shows empirically the inadequacy of classical mechanics which seems uncontroversial.. how many times historically have we shown contemporary classical mechanics to be wanting? bell, to me, simply says if you wish to find relation between bodies associated with classical mechanics and bodies associated with quantum mechanics you are going to have to do better, and i'd argue.. on both fronts