Ok Eric, since the proof that the above listed assumptions lead to predeterminability of outcomes is straightforward, I will be glad to find which of the above assumptions the 2 theories you linked reject. But this will take me some time.

Thanks for the discussion.

Hi Federico,

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]

Hi Eric, maybe we are not understanding each other, but if you read my paper you will clearly see that the EPR-Bell’s version that I have re-examined do not need neither “outcome independence” nor “factorization of probabilities”. They only (implicitly) need these two assumptions (implicit in the common scientific way of thinking):

1) If there a…[Read more]

“could you give me some references where these interpretation account for that?”

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]

Hi Federico,

“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]

“I see no fundamental difficulty of understanding it from the perspective of a theory in which Macroreality is false, like Everett, relational quantum theory, or QBism”

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]

# “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 system. They just happen to occur spontaneously, undetermined, but correlated, even if at a distance”

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

Hi Federico,

“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]

Hi Federico,

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]

Hi Eric, thanks for the comment.

#) “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]

Hi Eric, thanks for the reply.

#) “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]

Hi Federico,

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]

Hi Federico,

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]

Here is an 8-min video making the point. It’s the last episode in a 10-part video series for a general audience explaining the result https://youtu.be/kV3zGgdLJuw “Conclusion: Modern Physics is Comprehensive and Coherent”

“However, we emphasise once more that those correspond to observed events, and note that we make no assumption
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]

Thanks, Jerry: that’s interesting.

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]