09-24-2016, 03:34 PM

I have good days and bad days. :-)

Anyway, no, this is not a personal theory -- it's a way to get at an objective theory, and in so doing show that Bell's theorem lacks any criteria for objective knowledge. This has been the problem from the beginning, in marginalizing Popper's framework for scientific objectivity.

Ignore the point where the paper diverges into personal theory. In fact, ignore the paper altogether.

Consider the demarcation problem. Do you agree that it is a problem for science, and for Bell's theorem? Why or why not?

As far as I remember, my original assertion for this thread is that Bell's theorem belongs to philosophy, not science.

Anyway, no, this is not a personal theory -- it's a way to get at an objective theory, and in so doing show that Bell's theorem lacks any criteria for objective knowledge. This has been the problem from the beginning, in marginalizing Popper's framework for scientific objectivity.

Ignore the point where the paper diverges into personal theory. In fact, ignore the paper altogether.

Consider the demarcation problem. Do you agree that it is a problem for science, and for Bell's theorem? Why or why not?

As far as I remember, my original assertion for this thread is that Bell's theorem belongs to philosophy, not science.