Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:

In pure mathematics one can go for absolute truth but on the other hand those absolute truths are mere tautologies.

That is exactly right. A fine example of that is Bell's theorem. It is tautologous. It assumes (in a different guise) what it wants to prove, in order to prove it. Nice mathematics, bad physics.

Actually, Bell's theorem suffers from a "double whammy." It is a circular argument to begin with, because it assumes something that amounts to assuming the bounds of -2 and +2 on the CHSH correlator that it intends to prove. But what is more, what it assumes [i.e., Eq. (16) of my paper] is a false premise. So it assumes a false premise to derive a false conclusion.

***