## Simulation with non-local behavior

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

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:Please, do you know what mutual information means? Do you understand what it means for the mutual information to be significantly non-zero?

Do you understand anything about information theory at all, except what you've learned from pop-sci books? Since you are clearly incapable of answering the question of how Bob can extract information about Alice's settings "just by looking at his outcomes," this discussion has come to an end.

Good riddance! Like I told you before. No-signalling means Bob can't learn ANYTHING about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Mathematically, this means the mutual information between Bob's outcomes and Alice's settings should not be significantly different from zero. This is a precise mathematical fact. The mutual information quantifies the amount of information Bob(Alice) can learn about Alice's (Bob's) settings just by looking at their own outcomes. I don't expect that you will ever understand this as usual, since the only thing you know about for sure is trolling.

So for the last time, I don't need to develop or explain how Alice and Bob can use this to communicate. All I have to demonstrate is that the mutual information in your so-called quantum model is non-zero and that kills it. So keep deluding yourself that I must first use your model to communicate before you will accept the argument. That is irrational and illogical.
minkwe

Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

I don't think it is possible to construct A and B measurement functions that make any physical sense for non-local behavior. Does the "entanglement" of the particles all of a sudden jump to include the measurement apparatus? If so, it is pure silliness.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:So for the last time, I don't need to develop or explain how Alice and Bob can use this to communicate. All I have to demonstrate is that the mutual information in your so-called quantum model is non-zero and that kills it.

So far you have demonstrated exactly nothing.
Heinera

Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

FrediFizzx wrote:I don't think it is possible to construct A and B measurement functions that make any physical sense for non-local behavior. Does the "entanglement" of the particles all of a sudden jump to include the measurement apparatus? If so, it is pure silliness.
.

I don't think anyone would take this model seriously as an explanation of what the actual physical mechanism is. After all, it's just a numerical sampling af the QM joint distribution, so it provides no deeper understanding than what can be gained from the QM distribution itself. But it was not meant to be providing a deeper physical understanding, it was a response to minkwe's claim:
minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.

The model clearly matches QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. And we faced no difficulties.
Heinera

Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I don't think it is possible to construct A and B measurement functions that make any physical sense for non-local behavior. Does the "entanglement" of the particles all of a sudden jump to include the measurement apparatus? If so, it is pure silliness.
.

I don't think anyone would take this model seriously as an explanation of what the actual physical mechanism is. After all, it's just a numerical sampling af the QM joint distribution, so it provides no deeper understanding than what can be gained from the QM distribution itself. But it was not meant to be providing a deeper physical understanding, it was a response to minkwe's claim:
...

I was just talking in general terms not about your model specifically.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:Nope. Even with Richard's model, there is no way that Alice can signal to Bob (or vice versa) by using detector settings. No matter what setting Alice chooses, the probability distribution on Bob's end will still be 50/50. And of course if you had known even a whiff about quantum mechanics you would know that entanglement requires a distribution that depends on both a and b, but still is consistent with the no-signalling theorem.

For this model implemented in R see https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Of course you don't understand what it means to send information. It means the mutual information between Alice's setting and Bob's outcome and vice versa is significantly non-zero. Which means Bob can learn something about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Which is obviously the case for Richard's model and yours.

My model has zero mutual information between Alice's setting and Bob's outcome.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1738
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous