gill1109 wrote:Gordon Watson wrote:Dear Richard,
Thanks for the gillibluster: extreme verbosity with much avoidance and next-to-zero meaningful content.
Since all my paragraphs and relations are identified by a number:
1. Please identify where my schoolboy math does not acknowledge basic logic.
2. Please identify claims which contradict well known mathematical results.
3. Please show where I am confused by the meaning of words like "or" and "and".
4. The only point of difference that I am aware of is WRT my eqn (5): you see it as a nonlocal relation, whereas I show that it a conditional probability over clearly local (and spacelike separated) results!
So Richard, in happily putting you forward as an adversarial referee, I'll be listing the above (and more) as some of the features the editors may expect from you.
You could here, of course, save some busy people much wasted effort if you would state you case in mathematical terms. At this stage in our discussion, it will be an honest representation when I tell editors that, beyond #4, I have no clue as to what you objections refer to! I might also send them: Against Gill, "Watson's locality proof via tunable sources."
Time you got serious; Gordon
Dear Gordon,
I have stated my case in mathematical terms, many times, and in particular, in many published papers. See Section II of
https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338, published
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380450.
Get serious. I’ve read lots of your papers, and commented on them. Now read one page of one of mine and let me know what’s wrong with it.
Regards, Richard
PS I really like the term “gillibluster”. You define it as “extreme verbosity with much avoidance and next-to-zero meaningful content”. What you mean is that for you there is no meaningful content, and that there appears to you to be much avoidance. But I think that that is because of your ignorance of many technical terms and your inability to reason logically. Anyway, it’s always a delight to argue with you and I admire your persistance!
PS also sorry to hear that Fred is not well. Fred, I hope you get well soon!
Dear Gillibluster,
1. I am not aware of you finding any fault in my prior drafts, but let's proceed on the basis that you did. Then each has been corrected in this latest draft. So now, since I reproduce my old results, you need to find new errors. Again, I am not aware that you have found any.
2. WRT Section II, THE HEART OF THE MATTER, that you referred me too: I find much confusion!
In the language of probability theory, the mathematical core [SIC] of Bell’s original proof of his theorem is the assertion that one cannot find a single probability space on which are defined random variables X and Y taking values in the set {−1, +1}, for all a, b, unit vectors in R3, and such that E(XaYb) = −a·b (1) for all a, b.
In not recognising that his inequality (15) was false, here's what he said: "Thus P(b, c) cannot be stationary at the minimum value (-1 at b = c) and cannot equal the quantum mechanical value (3)." So, when I correct his error, no such impossibility exists. Instead, the correct result falls out, and we see that there is no point drawing conclusions from his defective inequality. (Me going on the identify and explain his error.)
Note also, wrt more confusion via your reference to probability theory. At Academia.com, you claimed that a conditional probability over locally-causal space-like separated results is NONLOCAL.
* 3. Further:
The result Xa of measuring Alice’s particle is obtained before the direction b in which Bob has chosen to measure his could possibly be known at Alice’s location. Bob’s setting can have no effect whatsoever on Alice’s outcome. But Bob could measure in any direction, and if Alice were to measure in that same direction, her outcome would be the opposite of Bob’s. This suggests [SIC] that all the outcomes Xa, Yb for all possible directions a, b exist in advance, perhaps as deterministic functions of the chosen directions and of some hidden variables.
It suggests to me NO SUCH nonlocal
* NONSENSE. It suggests to me that the paired results are correlated via the pairwise conservation of angular momentum. And on that basis alone, the QM result is derived, and confirmed by experiment.
4. {EDIT]: I see, on p.5, that you have again not answered an old question of mine:
counterfactual definiteness ("realism"). Can you please define what you mean by each term? And what are the scare-quotes around
realism meant to tell us? Then, on p.7, I find more scare-quotes around
local realism. Again, please, what are you signalling?
* NB: there is nothing approaching nonlocality in my locally-causal work.
HTH, wrt your continuing confusion [eg, p.7: My “position” on the metaphysical or philosophical issues has varied over the years and remains open."]: can you now please point to some errors in my draft?
Gordon
.
