Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
#45
I'm not so sure it implies an error in understanding, rather an error in philosophy. At least, a very questionable philosophy. Bell, EPR, and almost every thinker since the dawn of time has accepted it. It simply means I'm allowed to make assumptions about what would have happened if I had done something I didn't in fact do. For instance, I drop this pen; it falls to the ground. Physics and common sense both say that IF I'd dropped it 5 minutes ago, it would also have fallen. But the opportunity to test that statement is now forever gone. Can I still assume it would have happened? Counterfactual definiteness says yes, I can.

The reason we hear people denying it these days: they're trying to squirm out of the obvious conclusion of Bell - related experiments. But the concept has been considered long ago. Leibniz is the most famous example, with his Theory of Monads; although I never heard that exact term used in relation to him. Voltaire, by the way, thoroughly ridiculed Leibniz's denial of counterfactual definiteness, in "Candide"; but ridicule is no counter-argument. The Hindus considered denial of it (they considered everything) and rejected (the denial of) it. BTW as a general rule, any philosophical point, no matter how obscure, has been considered by great thinkers at various times during the last thousands of years.

The fact is there's no way to prove or disprove counterfactual definiteness. My judgment follows the Hindus; I accept it. If someone else rejects it, that's their opinion and they're welcome to it; I have nothing to say to them. Except, perhaps, ridicule Wink
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 06-18-2016, 05:02 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)