by **Gordon Watson** » Tue May 15, 2018 4:51 pm

RE: Mermin (2018): "Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.10119.pdfLooking forward to comments on -- and critiques of -- the above article, I begin with my own position.*

Against Mikko and other Bellians, and in the context of the EPR-Bohm experiment (the setting for Bell's work; and including variants like GHZ or GHSZ):

Whether Bell has one, two or three theorems, they are either false or inapplicable in such contexts!

FOR, in following EPR, Bell's analysis is similarly naive re the nature of "elements of physical reality".

* Bell's theorem is best refuted on Bell's own [= EPR = naively-realistic] terms, for naive-realism is false. nb: under my

true realism -- and against EPR -- I do not assume that all measured properties already exist prior to measurement interactions.

HTH; Gordon

RE: Mermin (2018): "Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.10119.pdf

Looking forward to comments on -- and critiques of -- the above article, I begin with my own position.*

[list]Against Mikko and other Bellians, and in the context of the EPR-Bohm experiment (the setting for Bell's work; and including variants like GHZ or GHSZ):

[b]Whether Bell has one, two or three theorems, they are either false or inapplicable in such contexts[/b]![/list]

FOR, in following EPR, Bell's analysis is similarly naive re the nature of "elements of physical reality".

* Bell's theorem is best refuted on Bell's own [= EPR = naively-realistic] terms, for naive-realism is false. nb: under my [i]true realism[/i] -- and against EPR -- I do not assume that all measured properties already exist prior to measurement interactions.

HTH; Gordon