3 ms·

It's true in a sense that you can get around Bell's theorem by supposing that Alice and Bob's mesasurement choices are strongly pre-correlated in a specific way

by n4r9 4y ago

It's true in a sense that you can get around Bell's theorem by supposing that Alice and Bob's mesasurement choices are strongly pre-correlated in a specific way. But then I feel you end up with this sort of bizarre universal conspiracy set up just to make humans believe in quantum theory.

q-big 4y ago
If you have such an objection, you might be interested in section 4 (in particular section 4.1 and 4.2) of the linked paper Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer; Rethinking Superdeterminism > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139...
- n4r9 4y ago
  > Bell's and similar examples that rest on arguments from fine-tuning (or sensitivity, or conspiracy) all implicitly assume that there is no simple way to mathematically express the allowed (or likely) initial states that give rise to the predictions of quantum mechanics. I mean, this is the crux of it. You'd have to have some convincing way of explaining why states "give rise to the predictions of quantum mechanics" for all possible measurement choices yet to be made by anyone. It still feels conspiratorial to me, having read that whole section! If someone were to show me a simple mathematical expression as defined above, I would be open to it. As far as I can tell, all this article is saying is "maybe it's possible".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - q-big 4y ago
    > If someone were to show me a simple mathematical expression as defined above, I would be open to it. As far as I can tell, all this article is saying is "maybe it's possible". Finding such a simple mathematical expression is exactly what research into this direction is for. But obtaining such is rather the end result that one hopes for.
    - n4r9 4y ago
      Sure. It's a fine and noble goal, but at this point it just looks... well, as the Wiki article you linked says, "as plausible, and appealing, as belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control".

by n4r9 4y ago

q-big 4y ago

If you have such an objection, you might be interested in section 4 (in particular section 4.1 and 4.2) of the linked paper Sabine Hossenfelder and Tim Palmer; Rethinking Superdeterminism > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139...

n4r9 4y ago
> Bell's and similar examples that rest on arguments from fine-tuning (or sensitivity, or conspiracy) all implicitly assume that there is no simple way to mathematically express the allowed (or likely) initial states that give rise to the predictions of quantum mechanics. I mean, this is the crux of it. You'd have to have some convincing way of explaining why states "give rise to the predictions of quantum mechanics" for all possible measurement choices yet to be made by anyone. It still feels conspiratorial to me, having read that whole section! If someone were to show me a simple mathematical expression as defined above, I would be open to it. As far as I can tell, all this article is saying is "maybe it's possible".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- q-big 4y ago
  > If someone were to show me a simple mathematical expression as defined above, I would be open to it. As far as I can tell, all this article is saying is "maybe it's possible". Finding such a simple mathematical expression is exactly what research into this direction is for. But obtaining such is rather the end result that one hopes for.
  - n4r9 4y ago
    Sure. It's a fine and noble goal, but at this point it just looks... well, as the Wiki article you linked says, "as plausible, and appealing, as belief in ubiquitous alien mind-control".