by gill1109 » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:56 am
Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Read my paper I have just linked. It explains all the detail of how the trick is pulled off and why it is not acceptable.
No, it doesn't. Why don't you make the argument here, in this forum, in let's say ten sentences or less?
I can't be bothered. I have presented my argument in the paper I have linked. Recognizing Bell's mistake is not rocket science.
Bell's argument is not rocket science. It is simple and it is pretty watertight. But a lot of people don't understand it. Joy Christian wasn't the first and won't be the last.
There are lots of people who still come up with proofs that pi is a rational number. There are quite a few people who argue that Bell's inequality is both true and false and hence that mathematics as we know it is inconsistent, or the rules of logic need revision. One can admire their originality and their pluckiness. I have the impression that the art of coming up with proofs that Bell was wrong has reached a bit of a dead-end. I haven't seen an original new proof for years. Ten years ago or so, you could still get a paper with such a proof published in a major scientific journal, and reported in the science supplements of the best newspapers. Joy Christian's RSOS paper is probably the last time this will happen, for many years.
Bell's argument is now part of the state-of-the-art theory of causality. See for instance
https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.05434Classical causal models cannot faithfully explain Bell nonlocality or Kochen-Specker contextuality in arbitrary scenarios
J. C. Pearl, E. G. Cavalcanti
(Submitted on 12 Sep 2019)
Abstract: In a recent work, it was shown by one of us (EGC) that Bell-Kochen-Specker inequality violations in phenomena satisfying the no-disturbance condition (a generalisation of the no-signalling condition) cannot in general be explained with a faithful classical causal model---that is, a classical causal model that satisfies the assumption of no fine-tuning. The proof of that claim however was restricted to Bell scenarios involving 2 parties or Kochen-Specker-contextuality scenarios involving 2 measurements per context. Here we show that the result holds in the general case of arbitrary numbers of parties or measurements per context; the connection between fine-tuning and Bell-KS inequality violations is generic and not an artefact of the simplest scenarios. This result unifies, in full generality, Bell nonlocality and Kochen-Specker contextuality as violations of a fundamental principle of classical causality.
[quote="Joy Christian"][quote="Heinera"]
[quote="Joy Christian"]
Read my paper I have just linked. It explains all the detail of how the trick is pulled off and why it is not acceptable.
[/quote]
No, it doesn't. Why don't you make the argument here, in this forum, in let's say ten sentences or less?[/quote]
I can't be bothered. I have presented my argument in the paper I have linked. Recognizing Bell's mistake is not rocket science.
[/quote]
Bell's argument is not rocket science. It is simple and it is pretty watertight. But a lot of people don't understand it. Joy Christian wasn't the first and won't be the last.
There are lots of people who still come up with proofs that pi is a rational number. There are quite a few people who argue that Bell's inequality is both true and false and hence that mathematics as we know it is inconsistent, or the rules of logic need revision. One can admire their originality and their pluckiness. I have the impression that the art of coming up with proofs that Bell was wrong has reached a bit of a dead-end. I haven't seen an original new proof for years. Ten years ago or so, you could still get a paper with such a proof published in a major scientific journal, and reported in the science supplements of the best newspapers. Joy Christian's RSOS paper is probably the last time this will happen, for many years.
Bell's argument is now part of the state-of-the-art theory of causality. See for instance
[url]https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.05434[/url]
Classical causal models cannot faithfully explain Bell nonlocality or Kochen-Specker contextuality in arbitrary scenarios
J. C. Pearl, E. G. Cavalcanti
(Submitted on 12 Sep 2019)
Abstract: In a recent work, it was shown by one of us (EGC) that Bell-Kochen-Specker inequality violations in phenomena satisfying the no-disturbance condition (a generalisation of the no-signalling condition) cannot in general be explained with a faithful classical causal model---that is, a classical causal model that satisfies the assumption of no fine-tuning. The proof of that claim however was restricted to Bell scenarios involving 2 parties or Kochen-Specker-contextuality scenarios involving 2 measurements per context. Here we show that the result holds in the general case of arbitrary numbers of parties or measurements per context; the connection between fine-tuning and Bell-KS inequality violations is generic and not an artefact of the simplest scenarios. This result unifies, in full generality, Bell nonlocality and Kochen-Specker contextuality as violations of a fundamental principle of classical causality.