5 ms·
But that doesn't say what it means by existence. It leaves that part unsaid. To go a bit deeper in to this, it's not just saying certainly predictable propert
by pmoriarty 6y ago
But that doesn't say what it means by existence.
It leaves that part unsaid.
To go a bit deeper in to this, it's not just saying certainly predictable properties are certainly predictable. It wants to say something else about them: that they exist. What does it mean by that?
The statement as it stands is more about certainly predictable properties than it is about existence itself.
- ziofill 6y agoI think I understand your point: we don't define existence per se. But here we only need to define the existence of the value of a property. And we define it by saying that if the we can predict the value before measuring it, then the value "exists". Take it as an axiom. When I said "the very value of the entangled properties does not exist locally" in my first post I meant that there is no way to predict the value (or of consistently assigning a value to the property) before performing a measurement.