-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
jacksarfatti joined the group John Bell Workshop 2014 8 years, 11 months ago
-
Roderich Tumulka replied to the topic The Assumptions of Bell’s Proof in the forum John Bell Workshop 2014 9 years, 2 months ago
Dear Richard,
Perhaps I understand better now the root of our disagreement. It seems to have something to do with whether the definition of locality refers to actions of an agent on one side having consequences on the other side, or whether it refers to events on one side having consequences on the other side, where events may include random…[Read more]
-
Richard Healey replied to the topic The Assumptions of Bell’s Proof in the forum John Bell Workshop 2014 9 years, 3 months ago
I disagree that the condition that X has no influence on B can be expressed as Prob(B/X,Y)=Prob(B/Y): that condition merely expresses the inequality of two general probabilities, each of which may be used to infer a (different) chance of an outcome event being of type B (there is no unique chance of an event’s being of type B in this case—see my…[Read more]
-
Roderich Tumulka replied to the topic The Assumptions of Bell’s Proof in the forum John Bell Workshop 2014 9 years, 3 months ago
Dear Bob,
Yes, let’s agree to disagree. Thank you for the discussion.
All the best, Roderich
-
Robert Griffiths replied to the topic The Assumptions of Bell’s Proof in the forum John Bell Workshop 2014 9 years, 3 months ago
Dear Roderich,
Thank you for your explanation. I think your “English property” would be what I call a “quasiclassical property/projector” using the language of Gell-Mann and Hartle. On the other stuff I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I once told d’Espagnat that the simplest explanation for why those mysterious superluminal…[Read more]
- Load More