07-22-2016, 07:37 PM

Ok, it may be your contention.

You confuse here two things: A mistake in Bell's derivation. Given that Bell gives precise definitions, and the mathematics is fine, this is, to put it mildly, not very probable.

A completely different thing would be if you, for whatever reasons, prefer some other definition of the words "local" and "realistic". This is completely reasonable in the case of "local" (where I support it - a theory with a maximal speed of information transfer of 10000 c is, in any reasonable meaning of the word "local", as local as one with maximal speed c). And to define "realistic" differently is fair game anyway.

So, what is empirically rejected are only some particular, precise definitions of Einstein causality as well as realism.

And, then, of course, you have rejected nothing yet.

You confuse here two things: A mistake in Bell's derivation. Given that Bell gives precise definitions, and the mathematics is fine, this is, to put it mildly, not very probable.

A completely different thing would be if you, for whatever reasons, prefer some other definition of the words "local" and "realistic". This is completely reasonable in the case of "local" (where I support it - a theory with a maximal speed of information transfer of 10000 c is, in any reasonable meaning of the word "local", as local as one with maximal speed c). And to define "realistic" differently is fair game anyway.

So, what is empirically rejected are only some particular, precise definitions of Einstein causality as well as realism.

And, then, of course, you have rejected nothing yet.