3 ms·

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,

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

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