3 ms·
He gets to the meat of his argument at 22:37 https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357 https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357 Essentially that the Bell theorem is wron
by tux1968 7y ago
He gets to the meat of his argument at 22:37
https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357 https://youtu.be/jvsTVlwek-g?t=1357
Essentially that the Bell theorem is wrong because his definition of causality was incorrect. I'm in no position to comment on it one way or another, but it seems like quite an odd forum to be presenting his case.
- wolfgke 7y agoA less odd forum, where he presents his ideas, is his book "The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics": > https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41285-6 https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41285-6
- jessriedel 7y agoEmpirically, what draws laymen to science talks is the star power of the speaker, not the correctness of the talk. A talk by a Nobel laureate will always be vastly better attended then one by a qualified nobody, even if the former is taking an unusual position disputed by other laureates and the rest of the community, and the latter is skillfully presenting the community consensus.
- ErotemeObelus 7y agoMake an absurd assumption get an absurd conclusion.