07-23-2016, 12:29 AM
Secur wrote: Â "I hope someone here can give a better answer to the question, 'Why not non-locality?'"
That's a good question, Secur. Â Let's look at what transpired earlier:
"gill1109: In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's inequality. Therefore, if in this context we observe that Bell's inequality is violated, we may deduce that local realism is not true.
I agree.
If A then B.
But, not B.
Therefore, not A !"
The proposition is unconstructed. Â You ask "why not?" nonlocality, and the answer is deduced as not-not-nonlocality. Â It doesn't go anywhere except in circles.
Let A = nonlocality
Let B = local realism
The double negation proof fails to even acknowledge local realism, much less construct it. Â So how can Gill's claim, "In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's theorem" be true? Â What context?
Local realism (Einstein causality) is constructed explicitly in the measure space of special relativity, and implicitly in general relativity, assuming spacetime is real. ("All physics is local".) Â If we were comparing apples to apples, context would be supplied by measure space. Â What is the measure space of Bell-Aspect?
Heads I win, tails you lose.  While not a very good argument, it's an excellent con, so long as measure space is not defined.
That's a good question, Secur. Â Let's look at what transpired earlier:
"gill1109: In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's inequality. Therefore, if in this context we observe that Bell's inequality is violated, we may deduce that local realism is not true.
I agree.
If A then B.
But, not B.
Therefore, not A !"
The proposition is unconstructed. Â You ask "why not?" nonlocality, and the answer is deduced as not-not-nonlocality. Â It doesn't go anywhere except in circles.
Let A = nonlocality
Let B = local realism
The double negation proof fails to even acknowledge local realism, much less construct it. Â So how can Gill's claim, "In a certain context, local realism implies Bell's theorem" be true? Â What context?
Local realism (Einstein causality) is constructed explicitly in the measure space of special relativity, and implicitly in general relativity, assuming spacetime is real. ("All physics is local".) Â If we were comparing apples to apples, context would be supplied by measure space. Â What is the measure space of Bell-Aspect?
Heads I win, tails you lose.  While not a very good argument, it's an excellent con, so long as measure space is not defined.