2 ms·
Right, I see how it's being used in the proof, my point is that what the theorem proves, regardless of how the notion of "is determined by" is clarified, is not
by dooglius 8y ago
Right, I see how it's being used in the proof, my point is that what the theorem proves, regardless of how the notion of "is determined by" is clarified, is not at all interesting or surprising.
- n4r9 8y agoIt's essentially a recasting of Bell's Theorem; in that sense it's both interesting and surprising if you thought that local hidden variables might still explain quantum theory. All you need - for both this and Bell's proof - is that directions are chosen with sufficient "randomness" or "freedom" so as to be considered independent of their past light cones. At least, independent enough so that the previously quoted step is possible.