Parrott's mathematical nonsense

[FrediFizzx]

Gill's usual response to Michel's argument is that it is valid only for "sample means", and can be overcome for "population means" by using the law of large numbers.

But that statistical trick is equivalent to using integrations instead of discrete sums as I have done in my recent posts; or, as Michel puts it, by dropping all subscripts:

***

Yes, but of course neither the law of large numbers nor statistical arguments work if the proper inequality is used for QM or the experiments. It has simply been mathematical trickery for 50 years. Un-freakin' believable!!

And perfectly explains why you were able to come up with a local-realistic model that gives the QM prediction for EPR-Bohm.

[minkwe]

Gill's usual response to Michel's argument is that it is valid only for "sample means", and can be overcome for "population means" by using the law of large numbers

Actually, his argument is even worse. The population is unmeasurable. Like I told him in the past, if there is a correlation between a husband's height and his wife's height, you can't measure it accurately by randomly measuring the height of just one member of each couple. Moreso, you can't use such data to proclaim the absence of a correlation between husband and wife's heights.

Similarly, you can't claim, ABCD do not correspond to simultaneous elements of reality, if you didn't measure them simultaneously. Yet such buffoonery has been going on for 50 yrs.

[Joy Christian]

Gill's usual response to Michel's argument is that it is valid only for "sample means", and can be overcome for "population means" by using the law of large numbers

Actually, his argument is even worse. The population is unmeasurable. Like I told him in the past, if there is a correlation between a husband's height and his wife's height, you can't measure it accurately by randomly measuring the height of just one member of each couple. Moreso, you can't use such data to proclaim the absence of a correlation between husband and wife's heights.

Similarly, you can't claim, ABCD do not correspond to simultaneous elements of reality, if you didn't measure them simultaneously. Yet such buffoonery has been going on for 50 yrs.

And the buffoonery continues, now on the cosmic scale: https://scirate.com/arxiv/1611.06985.

***

[FrediFizzx]

Gill's usual response to Michel's argument is that it is valid only for "sample means", and can be overcome for "population means" by using the law of large numbers

Actually, his argument is even worse. The population is unmeasurable. Like I told him in the past, if there is a correlation between a husband's height and his wife's height, you can't measure it accurately by randomly measuring the height of just one member of each couple. Moreso, you can't use such data to proclaim the absence of a correlation between husband and wife's heights.

Similarly, you can't claim, ABCD do not correspond to simultaneous elements of reality, if you didn't measure them simultaneously. Yet such buffoonery has been going on for 50 yrs.

It looks like the Bell fanatics have been completely stymied at RW. The combo of both your and Joy's arguments is too powerful for them to be able to counter in any logical way. But will they ever admit defeat? Probably not. Hopefully some lurkers "get it".

[FrediFizzx]

And the buffoonery continues, now on the cosmic scale: https://scirate.com/arxiv/1611.06985.

***

And we can see on page 14 of the paper that once again they used Michel's eq. (2) to say they have violated eq. (1). What is wrong with these people? Can't do simple math. Someone should start writing counter papers to all these recent experiments.

[Heinera]

I'm back.

Has anyone here, after a few days thougth, managed to come up with 16 frequencies for the 16 slip urn model that generates a CHSH value for (4) that converges to something outside -2, +2?

[FrediFizzx]

I'm back.

Has anyone here, after a few days thougth, managed to come up with 16 frequencies for the 16 slip urn model that generates a CHSH value for (4) that converges to something outside -2, +2?

Why would anyone want to do something impossible that is not even a point in the current debate? If you wish to continue, you need to prove that Michel's eq. (3) is true. But sorry... it is already proven that it is not true.

[Joy Christian]

Is there anyone following this discussion who is *not* affiliated with SciPhysicsFoundations and who thinks that the above is a correct analysis? If so, I will explain what is wrong with it. If not, I won’t bother. This discussion has become tedious and probably fruitless. The same arguments are repeated and refuted over and over.

In response to Michel's argument. LOL! Michel brings in a new argument to the discussion and Parrott thinks it is not new. Folks, this is a typical Bell fanatic response when cornered. So far no refutation of it on RW. Heine tried to refute it so give him credit for that. But the math does not lie. It is impossible to refute.
.

That was completely empty threat from Stephen Parrott of explaining "what is wrong with it." In addition to Michel's argument, I have now derived the Bell-CHSH inequality form the hypothesis that one can be in two places at once. Gill and Parrott are finished. And so is Bell's so-called "theorem." Bell fanatics are defeated.

***

[Heinera]

I'm back.

Has anyone here, after a few days thougth, managed to come up with 16 frequencies for the 16 slip urn model that generates a CHSH value for (4) that converges to something outside -2, +2?

Why would anyone want to do something impossible that is not even a point in the current debate? If you wish to continue, you need to prove that Michel's eq. (3) is true. But sorry... it is already proven that it is not true.

If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

[minkwe]

If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

[Heinera]

If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

Fred says (4) can't be violated with the 16 slip urn model. That's not good enough proof for you?

[minkwe]

If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

Fred says (4) can't be violated with the 16 slip urn model. That's not good enough proof for you?

You have no shame? Do you know what a proof is? Please provide the proof of (4) and data demonstrating violation of (1).

[Heinera]

If it's impossible, then surely Michel's eq. (4) must be true (in the limit)?

Where is the proof of (4)?
Where is the data violating (1)?

Fred says (4) can't be violated with the 16 slip urn model. That's not good enough proof for you?

You have no shame? Do you know what a proof is? Please provide the proof of (4) and data demonstrating violation of (1).

You have no sense of humor? Do you know what a counterexample is? Please provide a counterexample of 16 frequencies for the 16 slip urn model that demonstrate a violation of (4).

[minkwe]

Please provide a fair coin which disproves the fact that some coins are unfair

Aren't you tired of BS. I'm not interested in your urn, I've already given you a counterexample to expression (4), -- data violating it. You claim the CHSH, ie expression (1) can be violated, where is the data?????


Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated or not? If you do, provide the data please. How many times do I have to ask for it. You claim nonlocality can violate the CHSH ( expression (1) ), use your nonlocality to give me the data demonstrating violation of expression (1). There is only one CHSH expression which Bell proved, expression (1). You believe it has been violated by experiment. Where is the DATA.

You know it doesn't exist, so you try to cheat by slipping in expression (4) through the back door. But Bell never proved expression (4), nobody has. If you believe expression (4) is correct, provide the proof.

[Heinera]

Please provide a fair coin which disproves the fact that some coins are unfair

That is of course not the issue. Instead: Please provide a fair coin that regularly lands heads in 8000 out of 10000 trials.

Aren't you tired of BS. I'm not interested in your urn, I've already given you a counterexample to expression (4), -- data violating it.

No, you haven't. You have provided some con data that was clearly created by a non-local model. I asked you for something completely different - 16 numbers that woulld make a 16 slip urn model create similar data that would violate (4). You can't do that. You failed.

[minkwe]

That is of course not the issue. Instead: Please provide a fair coin that regularly lands heads in 8000 out of 10000 trials.

I should provide a fair coin that is unfair? Is that what you are asking? How smart of you.

You have provided some con data that was clearly created by a non-local model

.
Lol, there's no such thing as non-local data, the data exists locally on the same local spreadsheet, don't they.

Where is your "non-local" data violating (1). Please use any con technique you like, and any violation margin you like. Just produce data violating (1) by .00000000000001 since you claim the CHSH can be violated.

I asked you for something completely different - 16 numbers that woulld make a 16 slip urn model create similar data that would violate (4). You can't do that.

I won't do that because I told you it is a nonsensical request. I told you I'm not interested in square-circles or unfair "fair coins".

I'm interested in mathematical proofs and experimental data. Expression (4) is wrong anyway, so it can easily be violated, I've provided data violating it, putting that issue to rest. If you want to reopen it, go ahead and provide the proof of (4).

Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated by any data whatsoever? Yes or No.

I believe it can't. Can you answer this simple question?

[minkwe]

Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated by any data whatsoever? Yes or No.

Let's see how you Bob and weave out of answering this simple question.

[Heinera]

Do you believe the CHSH can ever be violated by any data whatsoever? Yes or No.

Let's see how you Bob and weave out of answering this simple question.

If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

[Heinera]

I asked you for something completely different - 16 numbers that woulld make a 16 slip urn model create similar data that would violate (4). You can't do that.

I won't do that because I told you it is a nonsensical request. I told you I'm not interested in square-circles or unfair "fair coins".

This was the only interesting part of your reply, so I snipped everything else. Why is it nonsensical? Because you can't come up with those 16 numbers? Do you agree it is impossible?

[minkwe]

If you mean (4), of course it can be violated. But not by a 16 slip urn model.

Nice try, I mean the CHSH, can the CHSH be violated or not?yes or no. Your answer should be at most 3 letters. Why is this question so difficult for you? If you can't answer, then you are not intellectually honest enough for me to engage you in a discussion.

So let the next thing you say to me be a maximum 3 letter answer to my question, if you want me to even recognise your presence.