Heinera wrote:Yablon wrote:Fair enough, so let’s follow that logic through:
QM predicts a correlation -a.b. If it could be proved that QM was counterfactually definite and local, without losing the correlation prediction -a.b, how would you interpret that?
I wouldn't feel the need to interpret that. I would go looking for the certain error(s) in the proof, if I had time.
That is entirely fair and appropriate.
Let’s put a pin in this. Sometime in a month or two or three, when I am comfortable that suitable rigor has been employed in the development, I may present a proof along with whatever assertions I am prepared to make at that time. And then I will ask you to beat up on it and see if you can find any holes or errors. If you can, that will be my problem to deal with. And if you cannot, then I will ask you to reconsider some things which at present you regard as “certain.“
The one thing I will ask again, right now, is for you to take a look at my early draft at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... e-4.3a.pdf, especially sections 3 through 5. Because a fair amount of what I will eventually seek to prove will find its foundations in those sections. So I would like to know early on if you or anybody else see anything there that is cause for alarm. That will also save you time down the road, because you will have a basic familiarity with what I am doing and will have had a chance to warn me off of certain directions if you believe they are wrongheaded. I know that Richard, short of a detailed review of the math calculations, has read through this and not pressed any alarms.
Jay