Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory

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

Re: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:39 pm

Gordon, your (15) [which you also call “WI”] does not contradict your (10) [which you also call “BI”].

You are confirming Bell’s theorem, not refuting it.

You seem to have a problem with elementary logic. Your elementary maths (simple formula manipulation) is OK. But you draw the wrong conclusions from what you find.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory

Postby Gordon Watson » Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:32 pm

gill1109 wrote:Gordon, your (15) [which you also call “WI”] does not contradict your (10) [which you also call “BI”].

You are confirming Bell’s theorem, not refuting it.

You seem to have a problem with elementary logic. Your elementary maths (simple formula manipulation) is OK. But you draw the wrong conclusions from what you find.


Richard,

Noting that my WI is mathematically and experimentally irrefutable, and BI is not:

1. How do you see me "confirming Bell's theorem" when my results differ so markedly from his?

2. Please, do me a favour: explain to me the right conclusions.

It's one thing to be deficient in elementary logic; far worse that I be seriously clueless.

Thanks,

Gordon
.
Gordon Watson
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Re: Bell's theorem refuted via elementary probability theory

Postby gill1109 » Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:35 am

Gordon Watson wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Gordon, your (15) [which you also call “WI”] does not contradict your (10) [which you also call “BI”].

You are confirming Bell’s theorem, not refuting it.

You seem to have a problem with elementary logic. Your elementary maths (simple formula manipulation) is OK. But you draw the wrong conclusions from what you find.


Richard,

Noting that my WI is mathematically and experimentally irrefutable, and BI is not:

1. How do you see me "confirming Bell's theorem" when my results differ so markedly from his?

2. Please, do me a favour: explain to me the right conclusions.

It's one thing to be deficient in elementary logic; far worse that I be seriously clueless.

Thanks,

Gordon
.

BI is derived under certain assumptions. You don’t make those assumptions. So you get markedly different results.

BI is mathematically and experimentally irrefutable if those assumptions hold.

BT is equivalent to an impossibility theorem concerning distributed computing. The proof is easy. If the theorem were wrong it would have been easy to come up with proof: a computer program which satisfies certain specifications. Nobody has delivered that computer program yet. (Nobody ever will!). I suggest you read my paper on Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 78 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library