07-24-2016, 11:05 AM

"I hope that answers your question".

Not even close.

"Let me emphasize again the key source of confusion. Since it turns out lambda doesn't exist - the point of Bell's proof by contradiction - there isn't one definitive measure space for this RV."

That's what we've been saying. The theorem assumes nonlocality, and goes about "proving" it in a way that proves what is assumed in the first place.

"We should be able to assume any reasonable space for lambda. I can't imagine any that would invalidate Bell."

You can't imagine it, because you don't accept Einstein local realism. Granted, if spacetime isn't real, randomness rules. That spacetime is real is validated by LIGO, among other experiments.

Not even close.

"Let me emphasize again the key source of confusion. Since it turns out lambda doesn't exist - the point of Bell's proof by contradiction - there isn't one definitive measure space for this RV."

That's what we've been saying. The theorem assumes nonlocality, and goes about "proving" it in a way that proves what is assumed in the first place.

"We should be able to assume any reasonable space for lambda. I can't imagine any that would invalidate Bell."

You can't imagine it, because you don't accept Einstein local realism. Granted, if spacetime isn't real, randomness rules. That spacetime is real is validated by LIGO, among other experiments.