The insanity of non-realism

[gill1109]

This is insanity as I've told you umpteen times. You can not control the randomness in a real experiment, so "fixing" the randomness in my simulation just because you can is insanity. Garbage in garbage out. You are free do do whatever you like but don't be deceived that what you get is meaningful in anyway whatsoever. Each individual outcome is a result of at least three variables only two of which are truly random. The hidden particle variable (λ), the hidden instrument/detector variable (ζ) and the known detector setting (α). In my simulation, α is picked randomly but is not really a random variable, since it is fixed for each relevant correlation being calculated. It can even be argued that it is not really a variable. In any case, when you "fix" the initial random number seed, you are doing the insane operation of controlling not just α (which you should be able to do, as is done in real experiments), but also λ and ζ, which even though you can control in a simulation, are uncontrollable hidden variables in any real performable experiment. I'm tired of explaining this to you in thread after thread after thread.

So Einstein (writing in the famous Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper) was insane?

Gedankenexperiments are forbidden?

The Thought Police take over physics!

[minkwe]

So Einstein (writing in the famous Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper) was insane?

Gedankenexperiments are forbidden?

The Thought Police take over physics!

Nope. The Bell Mafia is trying to convert physics into voodoo. We won't let them.

[gill1109]

I am also against voodoo.

Have you seen Joy Christian's claim to win the impossible Nx4 spread-sheet challenge?

http://rpubs.com/jjc/18915
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=52#p1898
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57&start=60&p=2373&view=show#p2373

How do you like the way that Christian changes the measurements actually done by Bob, depending on which setting is being used by Alice? Is this voodoo or is it non-locality or is it super-determinism (conspiracy)?

Your down-do-earth comments would be welcome on the last mentioned thread.

Please do take the trouble to read just the last page of Joy Christian's four page "experimental paper" http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078.

You may remember we were discussing a bet based on this experiment, and you strongly advised Christian against using the same set of particles for all measurement directions (but you thought it could work if he used four disjoint samples). Christian did not follow your advice and now he's trying to find a counter-example to the Nx4 spreadsheet theorem.

[FrediFizzx]

Nope. The Bell Mafia is trying to convert physics into voodoo. We won't let them.

The Bell Mafia does more than that. They try to ruin people that show they are wrong whenever they can since they know they can't win the debate. A very despicable practice.

[Gordon Watson]

Sane eh?

a very sane statistician) wrote ... “Bernouilli urn” is not appropriate, since in the real experiments we effectively have sampling with replacement, not without.

Demonstrates my point exactly, and I like Caroline Thompson. She obviously did not understand Jaynes. She had good company.*

BTW, it is insanity to expect people to constantly respond to insults and misrepresentations, it gets tiring. If scientists want dialog (rather than monologue) they should be willing to listen, understand and then either agree or disagree constructively. Virtual stalking doesn't help either.

* My emphasis!

For the record, based on correspondence with Caroline Thompson; and cautiously noting that, to the best of my recollection, Caroline did not change her opinions:

1. Caroline Thompson did not understand Jaynes; confirming minkwe's comment.

2. Caroline Thompson did not understand Aspect's experiments; she challenged the validity of quantum theory (and, see next).

3. Caroline Thompson did not understand Bell's theorem; she predicted that a loop-hole free Bell-test would not violate Bell's theorem.
...

[FrediFizzx]

For the record, based on correspondence with Caroline Thompson; and cautiously noting that, to the best of my recollection, Caroline did not change her opinions:

1. Caroline Thompson did not understand Jaynes; confirming minkwe's comment.

2. Caroline Thompson did not understand Aspect's experiments; she challenged the validity of quantum theory (and, see next).

3. Caroline Thompson did not understand Bell's theorem; she predicted that a loop-hole free Bell-test would not violate Bell's theorem.
...

Yes and unfortunately, she probably helped drive some of the insanity concerning Bell's theorem to a higher level.

[Joy Christian]

Nope. The Bell Mafia is trying to convert physics into voodoo. We won't let them.

The Bell Mafia does more than that. They try to ruin people that show they are wrong whenever they can since they know they can't win the debate. A very despicable practice.

Sadly, the Bell Mafia are not the only supposed "scientists" who engage in such despicable acts and get away with their crimes (sometimes they are even handsomely rewarded). There exists considerable evidence of such acts by powerful groups against dissenters of any genre. See, for example, this paper and references therein.