Hi Mark,

Yes – if by SI you mean that any hidden variables are independent of the future measurement settings, then this is a good gloss of the position.

Pete

Hi Mark,

Let me start by saying that I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said there. But I also don’t think you’ve quite understood my point. I’m not trying to advocate a position wherein we need to add some dynamical element to our 4D description in order to satisfy our temporally biased perspective; in fact, quite the opposite. Let me try to…[Read more]

Hi David,

Cheers for having a look at the paper!

The intermediate settings in Section 4.2 are supposed to be the alternate setting from whatever the final setting is set at, in that run of the experiment (and so other runs are not relevant to the calculation). This then gives probabilities for the actual measurement pairs matching EPRB…[Read more]

Hi Ken,

I’ll try to respond to your comments in the paragraph order you list them.

1. Agreed. In the source of the internal cancelling paths idea, a paper by Paul Näger, it is a quirk of the causal relationships that provides the cancelling. The model that I present, originating from Gerard Milburn, employs no such quirk, and the internal…[Read more]

Thanks, Mark – appreciate the input! A couple of comments…

On the footnote comment, I don’t think that dynamical and adynamical explanation should be exclusive. There are plenty of cases in science where two different explanations can be provided for the one phenomenon. For example (I can’t remember where I first heard this; maybe Harvey…[Read more]