Bell's equalities

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:22 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:... So Bell ends up with the inequality,

,

without any indexing. So the current argument by the Bell fans is that a, b and c don't have to happen all at the same time. But that is obviously wrong.

Back more on topic here. So if the pairs are independent like the Bell fans want to do, then the equality can be,

,

which of course then we have a higher bound of 3 for the inequality.

Precisely. Without the assumption of "happen all at the same time", the stringent bound of 1 (or of 2 in the CHSH case) simply cannot be derived. That should be completely obvious even to a school child. And I suspect that Bell believers know this. So what can they do to fool the world? What they do is obfuscate this simple fact by invoking probability and statistics. In doing so they overplay (perhaps unwittingly) the EPR criterion of reality. See footnote 3 in my argument for a homely example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf.

There is no assumption that different measurements are made at the same time. The assumption of Local Realism is that a random realisation of is formed. Then, *if* Alice chooses setting a, she gets to observe the outcome A(a,). Similarly for Bob. But Alice and Bob are free to choose any settings they like, or even, to do nothing at all - they can switch off the *detectors* and go home early and watch TV ...

Then there is the no-conspiracy assumption that the average value of A(a,)B(b,) over many, many hypothetical repetitions is the same - up to statistical variation - as the average value of A(a,)B(b,) over only those repetitions in which Alice did choose a, and Bob did choose b

This has nothing to do with local realism so not sure why you are even mentioning it. It is about some pretty simple mathematics. Is the "a" in P(a, b) the same "a" in P(a, c) and is the "b" in P(a, b) the same "b" in P(b, c) and is the "c" in P(a, c) the same "c" as in P(b, c)? Sure they are. So it is pretty simple to see that a, b and c all have to happen at the same time. If the 3 terms are independent (happen at different times), then the bound on the inequality is 3 not 1.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby gill1109 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:05 am

FrediFizzx wrote:This has nothing to do with local realism so not sure why you are even mentioning it. It is about some pretty simple mathematics. Is the "a" in P(a, b) the same "a" in P(a, c) and is the "b" in P(a, b) the same "b" in P(b, c) and is the "c" in P(a, c) the same "c" as in P(b, c)? Sure they are. So it is pretty simple to see that a, b and c all have to happen at the same time. If the 3 terms are independent (happen at different times), then the bound on the inequality is 3 not 1.
.

a, b and c are names of directions. Directions don't "happen". Sometimes one chooses directions a and b. Another time one chooses a and c. I don't understand how anyone can imagine that they "have to happen at the same time". Oh well...

In one single trial, a value of lambda "happens" to be generated. For a given value of lambda, for given functions A and B, and for given directions a, b and c, the following six numbers +/- 1 all exist: A(a, lambda), A(b, lambda), A(c, lambda), B(a, lambda), B(b, lambda), B(c, lambda).

Local realism is the assumption that functions A and B exist which, together with a fixed probability distribution for lambda, reproduce (at least to a good approximation) the correlations predicted by QM, according to the usual formulas. Quantum mechanics has no functions A and B.

Joy Christian has a LR model. He defines functions A and B and tells us the probability distribution of a "hidden variable" lambda. He writes down the correlations predicted by his model using conventional formulas, preferring the law of large numbers to informally define expectation values, rather than modern measure-theoretic probability theory.

He proves Tsirelson's inequality. His objection to Bell's inequality would also apply to Tsirelson's.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:36 pm

gill1109 wrote:a, b and c are names of directions. Directions don't "happen". Sometimes one chooses directions a and b. Another time one chooses a and c. I don't understand how anyone can imagine that they "have to happen at the same time". Oh well...

Those aren't just directions. They are directions "experienced" by a pair of particles in the singlet state.

An expression such as and factorization thereof into implies that the pair of particles "experienced" all three directions at the same time, otherwise any quantities derived using such expression/operations are meaningless in the realm of physics. The directions do not "happen", but "experiencing the directions" certainly "happen". I don't understand why this would be difficult for anyone to understand.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby gill1109 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:11 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:a, b and c are names of directions. Directions don't "happen". Sometimes one chooses directions a and b. Another time one chooses a and c. I don't understand how anyone can imagine that they "have to happen at the same time". Oh well...

Those aren't just directions. They are directions "experienced" by a pair of particles in the singlet state.

An expression such as and factorization thereof into implies that the pair of particles "experienced" all three directions at the same time, otherwise any quantities derived using such expression/operations are meaningless in the realm of physics. The directions do not "happen", but "experiencing the directions" certainly "happen". I don't understand why this would be difficult for anyone to understand.

Sorry, I disagree. I will try to explain one last time. According to the model of local realism, and in your words, is "experienced" (what do you mean by that word?) by both of the pair of particles, at the same time. More precisely, their physical systems could have access to it. They may or may not also "experience" a setting. If they do, then we will be able to collect an output (outcome).

Not the particles themselves, but an imaginary agent who knows the value of and who knows the functions , could in principle evaluate .

The particles don't experience anything. They are not agents. Maybe the photons fly from the source, carrying with them, but someone switches off the detectors and the photons are lost somewhere in the universe. The number still "exists".

The other element of local realism is that *if* setting a is chosen at Alice's detector, then the actual measurement outcome there is the number . This is called counter-factual reasoning. Philosophers argue what it means. Mathematicians don't have a problem – we are only talking about a mathematical model, anyway. These things exist in the platonic world of mathematics, which only exists in the minds of mathematicians, but fortunately is pretty inter-subjective, despite of course all the problems in the foundations. Do real numbers exist, and what are they? I have no idea. But FAPP we seem to be able to assume they exist. Possibly when we are talking about the Planck scale we should start to take seriously the notion that space-time (x, y, z, t) is not necessaarily well modelled by R^4. Einstein was well aware of this issue.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:01 pm

gill1109 wrote:Sorry, I disagree. I will try to explain one last time. According to the model of local realism, and in your words, is "experienced" (what do you mean by that word?)

I'm talking about the directions being "experienced" by the particle pairs not . Each particle experiences a setting so the idea of "may or may not" does not apply. Every particle experiences a setting, thus every pair experiences exactly 2 settings together, not more, not less.

Not the particles themselves, but an imaginary agent

I'm not talking about imaginary agents. Imaginary agents do not experience things. This is physics not voodoo.

The particles don't experience anything. They are not agents.

Sorry, this makes no sense. Physically, they are agents and every physical interaction is an "experience".

Maybe the photons fly from the source, carrying with them, but someone switches off the detectors and the photons are lost somewhere in the universe.

Photons just do not get lost in the universe. If someone switches off the detector, the photons experience a detector that is off and interact with the electrons in the detector and are eventually absorbed. Whether the detector is switched on or not is irrelevant to the fact that a physical interaction ("experience") took place.

The number still "exists".

This is completely wrong. The outcome of a measurement does not "exist" until the measurement is performed and the the outcome is recorded. "Existence" has a very specific meaning and part of the problem is imprecise language, as I have pointed out previously. Do not confuse "possibility" with "existence". Note that the symbols means precisely, the outcome obtained when a particle carrying hidden property interacts with with Alice's detector set to the angle "a".

In other words, The outcome obtained IF a particle carrying , interacts with Alice's detector set to the direction "a". Now replace all the terms in the above expression with the corresponding sentences, and notice how obvious the contradiction becomes when you have just two particles. You end up with two IF statements, with contradictory predicates. There is no way for either Alice or Bob to set their detectors to two directions simultaneously.

Note that the statement the outcome obtained IF a particle carrying , interacts with Alice's detector set to the direction "a" is a conditional statement. It can't exist until Alice actually sets her detector to that angle, and measures the outcome. Until then it is a "possibility" not an "existing" value, also known as an "actuality". Everything that is actual is possible, but not everything that is possible is actual. Because there are many mutually exclusive possibilities that can all be possibilities at the same time but can't ever be actualities at the same time due to contradictory predicates. So when you say above that the expression "exists", you are being very sloppy with language, you actually mean that the numbers are possibilities. Existence, and actualities deal with events that have happened and outcomes of measurements that have been performed. Lack of clarity on these matters will definitely result in multiple paradoxes and confusions. Note that correlations calculated from experiments are necessarily "actualities" because they are based on actual numbers measured from actual outcomes. However, note that any predictions from theories, even predictions about future experiments, are necessarily "possibilities" only, because they are conditioned on the measurements actually taking place as predicted. Measurements that were predicted but not performed and can no longer be performed because a mutually exclusive experiment was performed instead, definitely do not exist, rather they are "counterfactual". Suggesting that they exist, is a logical contradiction equivalent to admitting the simultaneous truth of mutually exclusive propositions.

Thus the number can not possibly exist as it's existence is conditioned on contradictory predicates as concerns the experiment under discussion. In fact, while the individual terms are possible, the combined expression is not even a possibility, let alone existing. It does not exist and can not possibly exist.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby gill1109 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:57 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:The number still "exists".

This is completely wrong. The outcome of a measurement does not "exist" until the measurement is performed and the outcome is recorded. "Existence" has a very specific meaning and part of the problem is imprecise language, as I have pointed out previously. Do not confuse "possibility" with "existence". Note that the symbols means precisely, the outcome obtained when a particle carrying hidden property interacts with with Alice's detector set to the angle "a".

Yes, the problem is the imprecise language. Or ambiguous language. You and I use the same words to mean different things.

For me, the symbols mean the outcome which would be obtained if a particle carrying hidden property would interact with Alice's detector set to the angle "a". There is no implication that that does actually happen. Anyway, I talk mathematics about mathematical objects in a mathematical universe. Nothing "happens" at all. We use colourful language to give you some feeling for what this might perhaps be used for.

You talk physics, but you are obliged to make use of mathematical symbols. Your meaning of those symbols is different from mine.

In physics, the outcome of measurement does not "exist" until the measurement is performed and the outcome is recorded. "Existence" has a very specific meaning in physics.

In mathematics, we define some abstract mathematical objects and then define others in terms of what we already have. The word "existence" has a very different, and very specific, meaning.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby Heinera » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:05 am

minkwe wrote:Thus the number can not possibly exist as it's existence is conditioned on contradictory predicates as concerns the experiment under discussion. In fact, while the individual terms are possible, the combined expression is not even a possibility, let alone existing. It does not exist and can not possibly exist.


Of course it exists as a perfectly well defined mathematical expression. Science has always been about answering questions that start with "What would happen IF...". The concept of counterfactual arguments is thus an intrinsic part of scientific theory. As opposed to theory, in the "real world" counterfactual outcomes of course have no meaning. There can be no counterfactual outcomes from an experiment. Nobody is arguing against that.

This means that properties like "realism" and "local" are mathematical properties of the theories we try to model nature with, not properties of "nature" itself (whatever "nature" is). And in these models there is no problem in computing answers to counterfactual "what IF.." questions. Your arguments against Bell's theorem simply do not apply to theories. That is why we can be mathematically confident that no simulation satisfying the technical and well defined rules of local realism can reproduce QM, as I laid out in another thread. An also why Richard can confidently increase his bet.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:19 am

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:Thus the number can not possibly exist as it's existence is conditioned on contradictory predicates as concerns the experiment under discussion. In fact, while the individual terms are possible, the combined expression is not even a possibility, let alone existing. It does not exist and can not possibly exist.

Of course it exists as a perfectly well defined mathematical expression.

But physically the expression is complete nonsense. It is completely meaningless even counterfactually! It has no meaning whatsoever in either classical or quantum world. It is pure mathematical fantasy. In the often repeated words of Richard D. Gill, it is poetry. Bell and his followers have been reciting nothing but poetry for the past 55 years. :-)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby Heinera » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:28 am

Joy Christian wrote:But physically the expression is complete nonsense. It is completely meaningless even counterfactually!
***

And why is that? If I have a theory and know the function A, the values of a, b, c, and lambda, what then prevents me from computing the result of this expression?

I'm fully aware that you are unable to do that computation in your own theory, but inability is hardly an argument.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:43 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:But physically the expression is complete nonsense. It is completely meaningless even counterfactually!
***

And why is that? If I have a theory and know the function A, the values of a, b, c, and lambda, what then prevents me from computing the result of this expression?

I am not going to waste my time answering that. You had years of opportunities to learn. For anyone else who wants to know the answer, it is in footnote 3 of this paper.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:57 pm

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:Thus the number can not possibly exist as it's existence is conditioned on contradictory predicates as concerns the experiment under discussion. In fact, while the individual terms are possible, the combined expression is not even a possibility, let alone existing. It does not exist and can not possibly exist.


Of course it exists as a perfectly well defined mathematical expression.

Nobody is arguing that the mathematical expression does not exist as a bunch of symbols on a web page. But are you unable to distinguish between the existence of a mathematical expression and the number it is supposed to represent? Next you will argue that Big-foot exists.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:36 pm

gill1109 wrote:For me, the symbols mean the outcome which would be obtained if a particle carrying hidden property would interact with Alice's detector set to the angle "a".

A distinction without a difference. The point is the statement is a "possibility" and not an "actuality".

There is no implication that that does actually happen.

Exactly! It only exists when it happens not before.

Anyway, I talk mathematics about mathematical objects in a mathematical universe. Nothing "happens" at all. We use colourful language to give you some feeling for what this might perhaps be used for. You talk physics, but you are obliged to make use of mathematical symbols. Your meaning of those symbols is different from mine.

Then you better stay far away from physics or if you want to apply mathematics to physics, you'd have to be more careful about these things. Saying "its just mathematics" is not a good excuse.
In physics, the outcome of measurement does not "exist" until the measurement is performed and the outcome is recorded.

We agree here.
In mathematics, we define some abstract mathematical objects and then define others in terms of what we already have. The word "existence" has a very different, and very specific, meaning.

We disagree here, existence means the same thing in physics as in mathematics. The issue is not with the meaning of existence, but with the thing that is claimed to exist. Is it the concept, or the thing represented by the concept?

When I say "let represent the outcome of an EPRB experiment when one particle of a pair, particle carrying property interacts with a detection station oriented along the vector", I am creating the concept "". Then you go ahead and combine a few of those concepts together to arrive at another concept . The "concepts" exist as concepts only. They can only correspond to reality when the measurements are actually made.

Mathematical concepts and symbols exist all the time as concepts and symbols. But when you define a concept as a number produced by an experiment, the concept can exist even if the thing that the concept represents does not. Big-foot as concept, exists, but the thing represented by that concept does not exist. Also, some concepts may exist without the possibility of ever corresponding to anything that actually exists, simply due to the fact that their definitions involve a contradiction. For example, I can invent a concept of a "square circle", that will never correspond to anything that exists due to a contradiction. The same applies to the expression . As a concept, it involves contradictory premises and can never correspond to anything that actually exists.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby gill1109 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:59 pm

If you put a computer program on github in which you define functions A and B and you simulate values of lambda = +/- 1 , then I can insert a line of code which computes the expression you refer to and writes it to a file, without disturbing the rest of the program.

I’m supposing your program doesn’t contain another line which checks that its code has not been altered from the version you put on internet.

A line of code is not a concept. Bell’s theorem is a true theorem in theoretical computer science. Please realise that.

Step 1: understand the basic computer science

Step 2: understand that a mathematical physical model of part of the world is a stand-alone mathematical structure which can be studied on its own terms.

Von Neumann solved Hilbert’s 6th problem by writing his book on the foundations of quantum mechanics. In the same year, Kolmogorov did the same, by writing his book on the foundations of probability theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert ... th_problem

Take a look at

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2017.0224
The solution of the sixth Hilbert problem: the ultimate Galilean revolution
Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano



This is just one amazing article in a whole special issue


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/toc/rsta/376/2118

Theme issue ‘Hilbert's sixth problem’ compiled and edited by Luigi Accardi, Pierre Degond and Alexander N. Gorban

Table of Contents

Hilbert’s sixth problem: the endless road to rigour
A. N. Gorban

Hilbert’s sixth problem: between the foundations of geometry and the axiomatization of physics
Leo Corry

A short walk in quantum probability
Robin Hudson

Quantum probability and Hilbert’s sixth problem
Luigi Accardi

From axiomatics of quantum probability to modelling geological uncertainty and management of intelligent hydrocarbon reservoirs with the theory of open quantum systems
Miguel Ángel Lozada Aguilar, Andrei Khrennikov and Klaudia Oleshko

The quantum N-body problem in the mean-field and semiclassical regime
François Golse

On the emergence of the structure of physics
S. Majid

Boltzmann equation and hydrodynamics beyond Navier–Stokes
A. V. Bobylev

Hilbert’s sixth problem and the failure of the Boltzmann to Euler limit
Marshall Slemrod

Scale matters
L. G. Margolin

Derivation of regularized Grad's moment system from kinetic equations: modes, ghosts and non-Markov fluxes
Ilya Karlin

Aggregation of Markov flows I: theory
R. S. MacKay and J. D. Robinson

Blessing of dimensionality: mathematical foundations of the statistical physics of data
A. N. Gorban and I. Y. Tyukin

The solution of the sixth Hilbert problem: the ultimate Galilean revolution
Giacomo Mauro D'Ariano
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:11 am

gill1109 wrote:If you put a computer program on github in which you define functions A and B and you simulate values of lambda = +/- 1 , then I can insert a line of code which computes the expression you refer to and writes it to a file, without disturbing the rest of the program.
I’m supposing your program doesn’t contain another line which checks that its code has not been altered from the version you put on internet.

Now we are talking about github? If you modify a simulation, it is no-longer the same simulation. The extra line of code does not exist in the simulation until it is introduced. The outcomes and effects generated by the extra line do not exist in the simulation until it is introduced.

Bell’s theorem is a true theorem in theoretical computer science. Please realise that.

Bell's response from his grave will be. Huh? What? :shock:

Why the pivot from physics to computer science? Is it because it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain an argument that Bell's theorem applies to physics experiments? How can Bell's theorem be a theorem in computer science when QM makes predictions about experiments not computers?

Step 1: understand the basic computer science

I suppose you think I don't understand basic computer science? What has this got to do with the simple meaning of "existence" in physics/mathematics?

Step 2: understand that a mathematical physical model of part of the world is a stand-alone mathematical structure which can be studied on its own terms

Sure, anything can be studied but do not forget
Step 2(z): understand that not all mathematical models can be applied to physical systems, and that logic and consistency are required even for abstract mathematical concepts/models.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby gill1109 » Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:22 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:If you put a computer program on github in which you define functions A and B and you simulate values of lambda = +/- 1 , then I can insert a line of code which computes the expression you refer to and writes it to a file, without disturbing the rest of the program.
I’m supposing your program doesn’t contain another line which checks that its code has not been altered from the version you put on internet.

Now we are talking about github? If you modify a simulation, it is no-longer the same simulation. The extra line of code does not exist in the simulation until it is introduced. The outcomes and effects generated by the extra line do not exist in the simulation until it is introduced.

Bell’s theorem is a true theorem in theoretical computer science. Please realise that.

Bell's response from his grave will be. Huh? What? :shock:

Why the pivot from physics to computer science? Is it because it is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain an argument that Bell's theorem applies to physics experiments? How can Bell's theorem be a theorem in computer science when QM makes predictions about experiments not computers?

Step 1: understand the basic computer science

I suppose you think I don't understand basic computer science? What has this got to do with the simple meaning of "existence" in physics/mathematics?

Step 2: understand that a mathematical physical model of part of the world is a stand-alone mathematical structure which can be studied on its own terms

Sure, anything can be studied but do not forget
Step 2(z): understand that not all mathematical models can be applied to physical systems, and that logic and consistency are required even for abstract mathematical concepts/models.

Bell's response from the grave will be YEAH!

I am not doing any "pivot". The mathematics which Bell deployed applied to certain mathematical structures. The mathematics which he does and the logical argument which he constructs, can be thought of as a theorem in theoretical computer science, or in discrete mathematics (combinatorics), or in approximation theory (numerical analysis, functional analysis). Because the formal mathematical structure turns up in all those different fields. It is useful to understand the bare mathematics and bare logic. It tells us things, for instance, about your own programs on github. It enables us to understand exactly what one can possibly achieve through those programs or similar ones (Philip Pearle, Gisin and Gisin, Caroline Thompson, Hans de Raaedt, Luigi Accardi, ...).

It goes without saying that we always have to use our own noodle. Please also be mindful of Step 2(z). This is exactly what we are talking about. I am saying that *your* mathematical model (the one you used in your own github programs) cannot be applied to the physical system of the 2015 experiment in Delft, nor that in Munich, nor that at Vienna, nor that at NIST. How do I know that? Through logic and consistency.

Joy Christian repeatedly said that Bell's theorem was a true purely mathematical theorem and the way to avoid it is to change the assumptions. He proposed to change the assumption as to co-domain of the measurement functions. Later he said that it was simply an untrue purely mathematical theorem, even without altering theco-domain, and that he had a counterexample. He also says nowadays that the assumptions hidden in the proof of the theorem come down to assuming that several measurements on the same particle can be done at the same time. We have already discussed that extensively. Obviously we are not going to come to an agreement. Tant pis!

If i add some lines of code to your programs, they become diferent programs. But science is about doing experiments. Changing things and seeing what else changes. Thought experiments are also experiments. I can do a thought experiment with your computer programs. I suggest you open your mind and think about some of those possible experiments. Open yourself to new experience. Don't close your mind and your senses to possible new information. I'm not saying that doing that thought experiment will in some evil way change your soul. I'm just saying that I believe that it will give you interesting new information. You won't know if I'm right or wrong till you do it. What do you have to lose? I'm not handing you some psycho-active drug to try out. But I am trying to help you to expand your mind. I'm sure we all want to keep on *learning* new stuff.

Sure, we all do it in our own ways. I'm off to fry some wild mushrooms for breakfast.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:10 pm

gill1109 wrote:It goes without saying that we always have to use our own noodle. Please also be mindful of Step 2(z). This is exactly what we are talking about. I am saying that *your* mathematical model (the one you used in your own github programs) cannot be applied to the physical system of the 2015 experiment in Delft, nor that in Munich, nor that at Vienna, nor that at NIST. How do I know that? Through logic and consistency.


I have never done a simulation of the Delft, Munich Vienna or NIST experiments, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. As I've told you multiple times already, you completely missed the point of my simulation programs and your suggestions about experiments which I should do, are completely irrelevant to, and completely miss the point of the simulations. I wish you would understand that but I've given up trying. We already had this discussions and I'm not going to repeat it here. You can reread the old threads for my response.

But how did we end up discussing my simulations anyway, unless you are trying to change the subject? The current discussion was about the meaning of "exist". You appear to have conceded my point which is the following:

As long as the symbols mean the same thing as defined by Bell, the number represented by can not possibly exist because it involves mutually contradictory premises.

If you want to argue that just because the symbols appear on this web-page then the expression exists, then I would like to hear your argument for the equivalent argument that says Big-foot exists, just because those words appear on this page.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby gill1109 » Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:22 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:It goes without saying that we always have to use our own noodle. Please also be mindful of Step 2(z). This is exactly what we are talking about. I am saying that *your* mathematical model (the one you used in your own github programs) cannot be applied to the physical system of the 2015 experiment in Delft, nor that in Munich, nor that at Vienna, nor that at NIST. How do I know that? Through logic and consistency.


I have never done a simulation of the Delft, Munich Vienna or NIST experiments, nor have I ever claimed otherwise. As I've told you multiple times already, you completely missed the point of my simulation programs and your suggestions about experiments which I should do, are completely irrelevant to, and completely miss the point of the simulations. I wish you would understand that but I've given up trying. We already had this discussions and I'm not going to repeat it here. You can reread the old threads for my response.

But how did we end up discussing my simulations anyway, unless you are trying to change the subject? The current discussion was about the meaning of "exist". You appear to have conceded my point which is the following:

As long as the symbols mean the same thing as defined by Bell, the number represented by can not possibly exist because it involves mutually contradictory premises.

If you want to argue that just because the symbols appear on this web-page then the expression exists, then I would like to hear your argument for the equivalent argument that says Big-foot exists, just because those words appear on this page.

Sorry Michel, I think that you have completely missed the point of what I was trying to say.

Do please try to write computer programs to simulate the Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST experiments. Last time I suggested that you do that, you declined, saying that sooner or later someone else would do it. Fred and Joy refuse to do it because they think such an experiment does not follow the rules of nature anyway (I don't quite understand their point).

You did not give any proof of your assertion that someone else would figure out how to write such a program. The evidence so far is that no one is going to try but rather comes up with lame excuses for not doing it.

I then said that it is a theorem from computer science that such programs cannot be written. Of course, that is a very good reason for not trying. But who knows, maybe there is a loophole in the proofs which so far have been published.

You said that my claim is irrelevant and that I might as well say that Bigfoot exists because his name just got written down. Well, Bigfoot presumably exists in some people's imagination. Your argument is that a program which simulates the Vienna experiment already exists in your imagination, and therefore you are not going to invest any energy in writing it.

What if your imagination is wrong?

I tell you that there is mathematical proof that that program can never exist in reality. I think that this claim is relevant to our argument and that you might care to take a look at one of the published proofs of that claim. It would make our discussions more effective. But we can also just agree, as far as scientific discussions are concerned, to continue to live on planets in different solar systems in different galaxies ;) :ugeek: :geek: .
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:43 am

gill1109 wrote:Do please try to write computer programs to simulate the Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST experiments. Last time I suggested that you do that, you declined, saying that sooner or later someone else would do it.

You think I go about my life by following suggestions you make on the topic? I have my own priorities about what I believe is important.
Are you now going on the record to claim that nobody will ever be able to simulate the Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST experiments?
Let us see how brave you are to make this claim explicit.

You did not give any proof of your assertion that someone else would figure out how to write such a program. The evidence so far is that no one is going to try but rather comes up with lame excuses for not doing it.

I don't need to give any prove for a claim that I haven't made. The ability of inability of anyone to disprove an original claim does not mean the original claim is true. You know that, so I don't know why you continue to push the idea that nobody has written the simulation of the experiment as proof that the Bell's theorem must be true. That is a fallacy of logic known as "argument from ignorance". Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argum ... _ignorance. Nevertheless, I have provided ample proof that QM does not violate Bell's inequalities, and that Bell's inequalities do not apply to the experiments in question. Many others have provided ample proof as well.

I then said that it is a theorem from computer science that such programs cannot be written.

Again you are mixing apples and oranges. Are you now going on the record to claim that nobody will ever be able to simulate the Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST experiments? Let us see how brave you are to make this claim explicit.

My suspicion is that you won't make the claim, instead you will try to switch it to a claim about a different simulation about Bell's inequalities, an imaginary physically-impossible "experiment" with no relevance to the actual experiments. Everytime we want to talk about real experiments like Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST, you change the subject to "imaginary" experiments with computer programs, and even when computer programs are written, you make an effort to change to make it more irrelevant to real experiments into an "imaginary", physically irrelevant simulation. So I beg you to please go on the record and claim that there will never be a local realistic simulation of the Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST experiments. Please, please please do it.

Your argument is that a program which simulates the Vienna experiment already exists in your imagination, and therefore you are not going to invest any energy in writing it.

This is silly. Please quote where I argued such a thing. Come-on man! If and when I have a simulation of any of the experiments, I will write it. At this point I haven't even tried. Even if try at some point and failed, it will say more about my abilities than about the suggestion that it is impossible to do.

I tell you that there is mathematical proof that that program can never exist in reality.

Then make the claim please: state for the record exactly the following that

I Richard Gill, hereby claim that there will never be a local realistic simulation of the Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST experiments.

Please, I'm begging you to make the claim. Just do it. No edits, no conditions, simply the claim above. Any attempts at modifying the claim will reveal everything we need to know about how confident you are about the claim.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby minkwe » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:06 am

I think this thread has run its course and can be closed. The two undisputed conclusions are the following:

1. As long as the symbols mean the same thing as defined by Bell, the number represented by can not possibly exist because it involves mutually contradictory premises.

2. Richard Gill claims there will never be a local-realistic simulation of the Delft, Munich, Vienna, or NIST experiments.

Edit:
Richard Gill notified me by email that he disputes both of these conclusions.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Bell's equalities

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:39 am

Ok, it is your thread so I am locking it.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library