3 ms·

> Violations of Boole's inequalities only happen when you do something bad with probabilities. I sort of agree with this, if by "something bad" you mean not ob

> Violations of Boole's inequalities only happen when you do something bad with probabilities. I sort of agree with this, if by "something bad" you mean not obeying the axioms of probabilities. > Experimenters observe CHSH > 2 because they are likely doing something bad with probabilities. I disagree with this completely. Note that the probability distribution I gave just now (which is an honest probability distribution) violates CHSH. It obtains a CHSH score of 4, indeed. I am not doing anything "bad" with my probabilities to obtain this score, I'm just providing a probability distribution that does not obey Bell's additional locality assumption. I ask you specifically, what is "bad" about the distribution P(a,b| x,y) = 1/2 if ab = x xor y and zero otherwise which makes it obtain a CHSH score of 4?

GistNoesis 5y ago
I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make. You can violate CHSH by giving a non-local distribution (That's what happening with the distribution you provide). But there is more than one way to skin a cat. You can also violate them using the mathematical trick as I suggested above. This trick to replicate the result seems a lot more plausible than non-locality. > not obeying the axioms of probabilities. That's exactly what I blame the experimenters for. By ignoring that they are conditioning on the hidden variable, they are treating what is a "conditional probability" exactly the same way as it if was a "standard probability". Which is a big no-no from the math standpoint.
- eigenket 5y ago
  Could you give an example of exactly what you think they're doing wrong? I've read a few of these papers and I've not seen any such issues.
  - GistNoesis 5y ago
    What convinced me of what is happening is, and of the pointlessness of Bell theorem is : Marian Kupczynski : Closing the Door on Quantum Nonlocality : https://philpapers.org/archive/KUPCTD.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/KUPCTD.pdf

GistNoesis 5y ago

I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make. You can violate CHSH by giving a non-local distribution (That's what happening with the distribution you provide). But there is more than one way to skin a cat. You can also violate them using the mathematical trick as I suggested above. This trick to replicate the result seems a lot more plausible than non-locality. > not obeying the axioms of probabilities. That's exactly what I blame the experimenters for. By ignoring that they are conditioning on the hidden variable, they are treating what is a "conditional probability" exactly the same way as it if was a "standard probability". Which is a big no-no from the math standpoint.

eigenket 5y ago
Could you give an example of exactly what you think they're doing wrong? I've read a few of these papers and I've not seen any such issues.
- GistNoesis 5y ago
  What convinced me of what is happening is, and of the pointlessness of Bell theorem is : Marian Kupczynski : Closing the Door on Quantum Nonlocality : https://philpapers.org/archive/KUPCTD.pdf https://philpapers.org/archive/KUPCTD.pdf