On the operational refutation of Bell's theorem

[FrediFizzx]

… I kind of imagine that you are afraid that you can't do it. Hence the bluster. …

We have already done it so we don't care about your silly "game". And it is pretty silly of you to be offering money for something that is already done. We can only suspect you never intend to pay it.
.

[local]

Since 2015 they have *all* been silent.

That is an outright despicable lie, compounded further by your silly asterisks. You should be ashamed.

Would you like to offer me a $64000 challenge to provide citations to peer reviewed papers that challenge those ridiculous experiments? You're not afraid, are you Richard? Not indulging in bluster are you?

[Joy Christian]

Since 2015 they have *all* been silent.

That is an outright despicable lie, compounded further by your silly asterisks. You should be ashamed.

Would you like to offer me a $64000 challenge to provide citations to peer reviewed papers that challenge those ridiculous experiments? You're not afraid, are you Richard? Not indulging in bluster are you?

Lying, double standards, shifting of goalposts, etc. are all perfectly valid forms of reasoning within the belief system of Bell's theorem. In fact, they are absolutely essential for its survival.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Ok guys, this is getting too personal. Let's get back on topic.
.

[gill1109]

Since 2015 they have *all* been silent.

That is an outright despicable lie, compounded further by your silly asterisks. You should be ashamed.

Would you like to offer me a $64000 challenge to provide citations to peer-reviewed papers that challenge those ridiculous experiments? You're not afraid, are you Richard? Not indulging in bluster are you?

I know that some researchers challenge those experiments. I never said that the experiments were unchallenged.

What has not yet happened is that anyone has published a local realistic computer simulation under the same loophole-free conditions which those experiments adopted.

Fred says that he and Joy have already done it. But he hasn't. He refuses to use the same timing restrictions which the experimenters adopt. I do not understand why his model of quantum mechanics only applies to one particular experimental design. Since the 80's, all the experimenters have been trying to perform the experiment under the rigorous constraints which are simply there to make the conclusion of the experiment as compelling as possible.

Bell's theorem is not a "belief system". No goal posts have shifted. The goal posts were placed in 1964. They haven't moved since then.

[local]

I know that some researchers challenge those experiments. I never said that the experiments were unchallenged.

Sure you did. You said everyone has been silent since 2015. What reasonable person would credit this thinking:

"Everyone has been silent since 2015 but they have published critiques."

But hey, we're talking about Richard Gill.

[gill1109]

I know that some researchers challenge those experiments. I never said that the experiments were unchallenged.

Sure you did. You said everyone has been silent since 2015. What reasonable person would credit this thinking:

"Everyone has been silent since 2015 but they have published critiques."

But hey, we're talking about Richard Gill.

Everybody has been silent = nobody has published any local realistic simulations which imitate the 2015+ experiments

I have challenged Joy Christian to be the first. He can present his computer experiment at the symposium. 64 thousand dollars says he can't.

Anybody else is also welcome to try.

[minkwe]

Everybody has been silent = nobody has published any local realistic simulations which imitate the 2015+ experiments

So what? Eventually, there will be a simulation if there isn't one already. But to anyone attempting to figure out where the needle was hidden, I would suggest to spend spend your effort on more productive things than continually trying to chase the magician's rabbit. Because the magician will always be ahead and the more you figure it out, the smarter the magician will get at hiding the rabbit, and the longer it will take to find the next one. It is better to not play the game in the first place. Those claiming that something cannot be done, should prove the negative

BTW, Earlier in our discussion about "randomness", you invoked "independence". May I ask, what claims are you willing to make about the independence in the Delft experiment, when considering the outcomes (x, y) and corresponding settings (a, b)?

[gill1109]

Everybody has been silent = nobody has published any local realistic simulations which imitate the 2015+ experiments

So what? Eventually, there will be a simulation if there isn't one already. But to anyone attempting to figure out where the needle was hidden, I would suggest to spend your effort on more productive things than continually trying to chase the magician's rabbit. Because the magician will always be ahead and the more you figure it out, the smarter the magician will get at hiding the rabbit, and the longer it will take to find the next one. It is better to not play the game in the first place. Those claiming that something cannot be done, should prove the negative

BTW, Earlier in our discussion about "randomness", you invoked "independence". May I ask, what claims are you willing to make about the independence in the Delft experiment, when considering the outcomes (x, y) and corresponding settings (a, b)?

There is no simulation yet, and Bell's theorem says there never will be.

If there is an as yet unknown error in the proof of Bell's theorem, then someone will eventually locate it. And then there will be a simulation which proves that the theorem was wrong. Notice: I am talking about a theorem in the field of computer science about distributed computing using classical computers and classical internet connections between them.

Joy Christian claims to have located an error in the proof. He claims to have a mathematical counterexample. He claims to have a simulation program or programs which proves that he is right. So he must be able to win my challenge. And thereby, more important than winning 64 thousand dollars from me, and forcing me to "eat my hat", he will also gain universal acclaim and probably a Nobel prize.

This also applies to you, Michel. Please go ahead and submit your suite of computer programs. We will give a live demonstration of them at our symposium. I would like to discuss with you what conditions you would insist on, to prevent me from cheating. I think we will have to agree that a trusted third party (or small team of trusted third parties) will supply "random settings" which neither you nor I can predict. I wonder who you would accept as trusted third party.

Instead, Joy claims that he already won my challenge and that I have moved the goalposts. But the goalposts never, ever moved, from where they were placed by Bell in 1981. And everyone witnessed how he and Fred lost the challenge, the last time that I issued it. I recall that you even told them not to play the game because you knew they were bound to lose.

The challenge can, on the other hand, be won if one replaces classical computers with classical internet connections by quantum computers with quantum internet connections. At least, that is what the latest generation of Bell-type experiments strongly suggests, despite various remaining imperfections.