Thanks for the discussion.

]]>As I said, I *have* read your paper. But you do not provide a proof of that claim there. I’m saying that if you try to prove it you will find that you will fail, because there is a constructive example of a model that satisfies 1 and 2 above and reproduces quantum correlations (namely quantum causal models). In fact people even study…[Read more]

1) If there a…[Read more]

]]>This debate has developed in most detail in the case of the Everett interpretation. For example, Deutsch and Hayden, for example, have argued that a notion of locality can be maintained in Everett, and the notion of locality that can be maintained is essentially…[Read more]

]]>“If you reject this principle (and I think that it would be even worse than the solipsism option) you would invalidate all the scientific knowledge we have. At this stage it would be useless to talk about locality or everything else. The hypothesis that causes are in the past and that correlations need an explanation in my opinion is…[Read more]

]]>Hi Eric, since I see many difficulties to give an operational notion of speed of influences in physical space without taking S,a,b,A,B as real events occurring in space, could…[Read more]

]]>This is not a way out, this is purely nonsense, with all the…[Read more]

]]>“*The reality of the spatiotemporal events S, a, b, A, B (S is the process of emission of particles in the source) is a necessary condition to define speed of influences and so locality in physical space. In fact this is an implicit assumption of EPR-Bell argument/theorem*“.

I agree that it is an implicit assumption in the EPR/Bell…[Read more]

]]>One of the ways around the conclusion of predetermination, even while assuming Macroreality, is the “passion at a distance” resolution à la Shimony: the measurement outcomes happen to be correlated in the appropriate way, but it is not that one of the outcomes causes the other, or objectively collapses the state of the distant…[Read more]

]]>#) “Note also that 1-3 are not the assumptions made by EPR at all”

They are. Maybe the presentation of the argument written by Podolski in 1935 it’s not so clear, so I’m referring actually to the later presentation of the argument in Einstein 1948 (thanks for the implicit reminder, I need to add the refer…[Read more]

]]>#) “I gather that what you mean is that if Charlie’s observations are real, then they must be (real) hidden variables (for Alice). That may be true, but again, we do not need to make that assumption”

Independently by the fact that you explicitly make that assumption, it’s nevertheless surely true.

#)…[Read more]

]]>Following up on our previous discussion, now that I’ve read your paper, can you provide a mathematical proof that assumptions 2 and 3 in your paper lead to predetermination of measurement outcomes? This should help clarifying that you actually need an extra assumption apart from Parameter Independence; i.e. you need an assumption…[Read more]

]]>Thanks for the comments.

“*Regarding the first part of the quoted sentence, I would like to note that from Alice’s perspective those events observed by Charlie are not more real than hidden variables (or than Bob’s measurement choices and outcomes) until Alice become conscious of them*“.

Your comment seems to already deny one of the…[Read more]

]]>Conceptually, in the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability, it is an extension of logic for the case of plausible reasoning. The axioms are,…[Read more]

]]>about hidden variables predetermining all measurement outcomes.”

Regarding the first part of the quoted sentence, I would like to note that from Alice’s perspective those events observed by Charlie are not more real than hidden…[Read more]

]]>Quantum gravity from nonnoetherian spacetime

Comments/criticism very welcome. ]]>

You say:

*I am guessing that your answer is “no” and that the only allowed possibilities are that Alice sees “+1” both times and that Bob sees “-1” both times, or visa versa.*

For the spacelike separated case you describe, “no” is indeed my answer.

You are right to distinguish superluminal influence from superl…[Read more]

Thank you for your response to my earlier posting. I had understood that

you were agreeing with Shan that Alice would expect 50% of her results to

be “+1”; this clarification eliminates my worry about a contradiction

between the expectations of Alice and Bob. Alice would say that each

individual result has a probability of 50%…[Read more] ]]>

If you read my publications, you will find that I assign objective physical reality to quantum states and the advanced states. You seem to be implicitly assuming that for something…[Read more] ]]>

A little clarification:

You say

Healey and Gao agree Alice expects the result “+1” only 50% of the time

.

In her situation prior to each of her individual measurements Alice expects each of its possible results to be equally likely. But in her situation prior to the whole sequence of her future measurements Alice expects eit…[Read more]

]]>assumptions present in these cornerstones of foundations of q…[Read more] ]]>

Healey and Shan Gao agree that Alice would expect to obtain the result

“+1” about 50% of the time. Let’s think about what Bob would expect

Alice’s results to be. I will suppose, to make the story more

definite, that Bob’s own measurement has the result “-1”.

Consider first…[Read more] ]]>

In particular, quantum theory missed asymptotic superselection rules which restrict the action of the superposition principle in some scattering problems for closed systems with asymptotically free dynamics.

In details:

As is known, when discussing Bell inequalities, it is very important to identify all (explicit and implicit)…[Read more]

]]>On p. 7 you write, “This intrinsic randomness allows *new sorts of nonlocal probabilistic correlations* for ‘entangled’ quantum states of separated systems.” We offer an explanation (couched in spacetime) of this fact in our post, Mysteries of QM and SR Share a Common Origin: No Preferred Reference Frame.

For example, in the simple…[Read more]

]]>Now I think my analysis of unitary quantum theories will apply to RTI. See my paper section about the…[Read more]

]]>It is based on this paper published in Entropy last month:

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/7/692/pdf

The take-home message is that far from being…[Read more]

]]>But I cannot agree with you. I think the Born Rule must be applied at a time, while this would not necessarily introduce a preferred frame in relativity as some people think, although my new argument says the opposite.

The reason is that if the Born Rule is not applied at a time for a joint measurement of…[Read more]

]]>