


PS. And another BTW, I've got my own non-local model that is way better and more simple than John Reed's strawman example. It was the inspiration for the local model.
.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Joy has written that the purpose of his work is to challenge conventional understandings of metaphysical concepts (like “locality” and “realism”).
I have not written any such thing. Only an illiterate fool who cannot read plain English would read what I have written and claim what you are claiming. Stop spreading lies about my work.
For anyone else who is interested, please read Section II of my following paper to find out what I have actually written: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9418997
.
Joy Christian wrote:My work on the subject [2]–[6] does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Oh BTW, you forgot to point out where my explanation is wrong so you must accept that it is absolutely correct. But even without that explanation the statistics shoot you down. Out of 1 million trials there are probably less than 20 events with the flips associated with a change in b. That is pretty statistically insignificant! That means there are 999,980 events that are completely local no matter what. You are finished. Done! Time to get over it and move on!![]()
![]()
![]()
PS. And another BTW, I've got my own non-local model that is way better and more simple than John Reed's strawman example. It was the inspiration for the local model.
M <- 4
eta <- 3
beta <- 0.3
s <- 100 # Fred's singlet angle "s" in degrees
S <- rep(s, 4) * pi / 180
e <- 20 # Fred's auxiliary hidden variable "e" for Michel's lambda
E <- rep(e, 4) * pi / 180
R <- beta * cos(E / eta)^2 # Fred's lambda
aBits <- c(0, 1, 0, 1)
bBits <- c(0, 0, 1, 1)
aRadians <- aBits * pi / 2
bRadians <- bBits * pi / 2 + pi / 4
aDeg <- aBits * 90
bDeg <- bBits * 90 + 45
C <- abs(cos(aRadians - S)) < R # TRUE is "fail", FALSE is "good"
A <- ifelse(C, -sign(sin(aRadians - S)), -sign(cos(aRadians - S)))
AA <- -sign(sin(aRadians - S))
D <- abs(cos(bRadians - S)) < R # TRUE is "fail", FALSE is "good"
B <- ifelse(D, +sign(sin(bRadians - S)), +sign(cos(bRadians - S)))
BB <- +sign(sin(bRadians - S))
A <- ifelse(D & !(A == AA), -A, A)
B <- ifelse(C & !(B == BB), -B, B)
data <- cbind(aDeg, bDeg, A, B)
s # angle "s"
e # angle "e", determines "lambda"
data # settings and outcomes
[1]> s # angle "s"
[1] 100
> e # angle "e", determines "lambda"
[1] 20
> data # settings and outcomes
aDeg bDeg A B
[1,] 0 45 1 -1
[2,] 90 45 -1 1
[3,] 0 135 1 1
[4,] 90 135 -1 1
>
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
Joy has written that the purpose of his work is to challenge conventional understandings of metaphysical concepts (like “locality” and “realism”).
I have not written any such thing. Only an illiterate fool who cannot read plain English would read what I have written and claim what you are claiming. Stop spreading lies about my work.
For anyone else who is interested, please read Section II of my following paper to find out what I have actually written: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9418997
.
Thanks for the link, Joy! Here are your actual words:Joy Christian wrote:My work on the subject [2]–[6] does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it.
Now, regarding Fred's programming:FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Oh BTW, you forgot to point out where my explanation is wrong so you must accept that it is absolutely correct. But even without that explanation the statistics shoot you down. Out of 1 million trials there are probably less than 20 events with the flips associated with a change in b. That is pretty statistically insignificant! That means there are 999,980 events that are completely local no matter what. You are finished. Done! Time to get over it and move on!![]()
![]()
![]()
PS. And another BTW, I've got my own non-local model that is way better and more simple than John Reed's strawman example. It was the inspiration for the local model.
Your explanation is an explanation of what your code does. You can say that it is all absolutely local if you like, but I disagree. This is how I investigate the locality of your programming. Here is a piece of R code which reproduces exactly what your code does, once the random selections of various variables are replaced by pre-chosen values. You will notice that I keep the two hidden variables the same, for four "counterfactual" trials, in which the settings vary. See if you can spot the nonlocality. (I need to do some checks, this is not definitive).
- Code: Select all
M <- 4
eta <- 3
beta <- 0.3
s <- 100 # Fred's singlet angle "s" in degrees
S <- rep(s, 4) * pi / 180
e <- 20 # Fred's auxiliary hidden variable "e" for Michel's lambda
E <- rep(e, 4) * pi / 180
R <- beta * cos(E / eta)^2 # Fred's lambda
aBits <- c(0, 1, 0, 1)
bBits <- c(0, 0, 1, 1)
aRadians <- aBits * pi / 2
bRadians <- bBits * pi / 2 + pi / 4
aDeg <- aBits * 90
bDeg <- bBits * 90 + 45
C <- abs(cos(aRadians - S)) < R # TRUE is "fail", FALSE is "good"
A <- ifelse(C, -sign(sin(aRadians - S)), -sign(cos(aRadians - S)))
AA <- -sign(sin(aRadians - S))
D <- abs(cos(bRadians - S)) < R # TRUE is "fail", FALSE is "good"
B <- ifelse(D, +sign(sin(bRadians - S)), +sign(cos(bRadians - S)))
BB <- +sign(sin(bRadians - S))
A <- ifelse(D & !(A == AA), -A, A)
B <- ifelse(C & !(B == BB), -B, B)
data <- cbind(aDeg, bDeg, A, B)
s # angle "s"
e # angle "e", determines "lambda"
data # settings and outcomes
Here are the results:
- Code: Select all
[1]> s # angle "s"
[1] 100
> e # angle "e", determines "lambda"
[1] 20
> data # settings and outcomes
aDeg bDeg A B
[1,] 0 45 1 -1
[2,] 90 45 -1 1
[3,] 0 135 1 1
[4,] 90 135 -1 1
>
Spot the nonlocality?
Joy Christian wrote:Your argument is nonsensical. Neither quantum mechanics nor experiments have anything meaningful to say about what happens in one trial or four, n = 1 or n = 4. The purpose of a local-realistic model is to reproduce statistical predictions of quantum mechanics in a large n limit, which the model presented in our paper does spectacularly.
The fact that our model is local is quite manifest from the analytical prescription for the measurement results A(a, h) and B(b, h) presented in our paper. See equations (13) to (26). One has to be quite ignorant of Einstein and Bell's definition of locality to believe the strawman you have created and then knocked down triumphantly. That is the kind of deception I have seen from you time and again during the past ten years. It does not surprise me anymore.
And quoting me journalistically from my papers will only convince dishonest Bell-believers. It will not impress honest scientists because by now everyone knows your game. See the recent posts by "local" and Justo. It is not only me and Fred who have deeply negative opinions about you.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Yep, more freakin' nonsense. I'm going to start deleting those posts if you keep it up. Worst case, there are 20 events out of a million where a change in b might coincide with a quaternion sign flip. Completely statistically insignificant. 999,980 events that are completely local. Go ahead, check that out with your R code. And no strawmen allowed. Your finished. Time to get over it and move on!![]()
![]()
![]()
.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 I actually messed up on the original percentage. Went the wrong way. For 10,000 trials I get 2 possible cases out of 10 runs. So, that is 0.2/10,000 = 0.00002 or 0.0000002 percent. That gives you 20 events for a million trials. Anyways, 1,000,000 x 0.00002 = 20.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Stop with all the nonsense and program up the actual calculation for our model! Ask questions if you need help.
.
gill1109 wrote:
The authors of that paper are very smart guys...
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
The authors of that paper are very smart guys...
Anyone who believes in Bell's junk theorem, or that nonlocality is inevitable on its basis, cannot possibly be "smart guys", at least in my eyes and the eyes of some participants of this forum.
.
Joy Christian wrote:My work on the subject does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 It is nonsense. In our model the sign flips are roughly about 5 percent of the total events. Of that 5 percent a small fraction are associated with a change of b. Of course you CAN'T use a strawman to calculate this. What? You haven't programmed the actual model yet? You should be asking questions instead of spewing nonsense.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Your tests are all statistically insignificant. Try again with more trials. Plus the change in sign is due to quaternion sign flips.![]()
![]()
![]()
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Your tests are all statistically insignificant. Try again with more trials. Plus the change in sign is due to quaternion sign flips.![]()
![]()
![]()
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Your tests are all statistically insignificant. Try again with more trials. Plus the change in sign is due to quaternion sign flips.![]()
![]()
![]()
.
This has nothing to do with statistical significance. It is a method to check if you have faithfully implemented the functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) in your program. If we keep lambda fixed and changes only b, the test runs by Richard and jreed shows that sometimes the outcome of A(a, lambda) also changes in your program. One instance of this is enough to prove that there is something fishy about your code.
It seems that "quaternionic sign flips" is just a code word for "spooky action at a distance."
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Your tests are all statistically insignificant. Try again with more trials. Plus the change in sign is due to quaternion sign flips.![]()
![]()
![]()
.
This has nothing to do with statistical significance. It is a method to check if you have faithfully implemented the functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) in your program. If we keep lambda fixed and change only b, the test runs by Richard and jreed shows that sometimes the outcome of A(a, lambda) also changes in your program. One instance of this is enough to prove that there is something fishy with your code.
It seems that "quaternionic sign flips" is just a code word for "spooky action at a distance."
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 More freakin' NONSENSE! Heine is rarely correct and is totally wrong here. I already told you that the total number of sign flips is about 5 percent so no way you can get 20 percent. Pay freakin' attention! So, the percentage of a change of b involved with a sign flip is a tiny fraction of the 5 percent. Time to get over it and move on!![]()
![]()
![]()
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 137 guests