Non-locality

[Dalo]

3 minutes ago, uncool said:

It is not that you must agree with the premises. It is that you must understand them in the first place. It is that if you wish to reject what experts are saying, you need to know what they are saying in the first place.

I assure you that you would be laughed at by not only philosophers, but firstly by the scientific community, if you ever tried to publish a paper defending this view

 

Attacking a view under the pretense that your opponent is not qualified is the weakest argument you can think of. What is demanded are arguments, not a judgment on your opponent's abilities. Only people unsure of their own arguments would  stoop so low.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dalo

[uncool]

1 minute ago, Dalo said:

I assure you that you would be laughed at by not only philosophers, but firstly by the scientific community, if you ever tried to publish a paper defending this view

Ok. 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Dalo said:

I assure you that you would be laughed at by not only philosophers, but firstly by the scientific community, if you ever tried to publish a paper defending this view

Not at all. It is entirely reasonable, in any subject, to insist that someone understand the basics of the subject before engaging in an intelligent discussion.

14 minutes ago, Dalo said:

Attacking a view under the pretense that your opponent is not qualified is the weakest argument you can think of.

As you make it clear with every post (in every thread) that you don't have a clue, there is no "pretence" that you are not qualified.

Your repeated responses of "Bell's theorem is wrong ... OK, not wrong but not applicable ... no I can't say why it doesn't apply I just don't think it should" only serve to confirm this.

Your insistence that your nonsensical arguments should be taken seriously is indistinguishable from trolling.

Edit: I have suggested that the mods close this thread as you are clearly unable/unwilling to engage with the subject.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Dalo said:

 My claim is certainly not extraordinary. The denial, which I have certainly made clear, of the concept of entanglement, is absolutely not unscientific. It forms the basis of the famous paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR), in which they emphatically reject the idea of entanglement.

Which is shown to be wrong with the Bell test experiments. It's one thing to object. It's quite another to back it up (or not) with experimental evidence.

6 hours ago, Dalo said:

Those were my two fundamental assumptions:

1) When both photons leave the atom, they have the same polarization;

2) both filters can be considered as identical.

There are some problems though with this objection. It would be a hidden variable theory and therefore would negate the possibility of entanglement. The entanglement conclusion only works with both assumptions.

You continue to ignore the assumption of whether the direction of the polarization of the photons is determined, which is critical to the discussion.

[Dalo]

Just now, swansont said:

Which is shown to be wrong with the Bell test experiments. It's one thing to object. It's quite another to back it up (or not) with experimental evidence.

I find it quite surprising that you still cling to this interpretation. It has never been proven wrong. The debate is still ongoing.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Dalo said:

I have made it perfectly clear from the start, and if you want I will produce quotes from this thread, that I am not analyzing the mathematical structure of Bell's theorem, or that of von Neumann's argumentation.

In fact, I emphatically declared that the problem of hidden variables cannot be solved by mathematical means. The fact alone that there are at least two theories, von Neumann's and Bell's, with completely different conclusions, makes my position at least plausible.

Since a mathematic solution exists, this is a laughable claim.

 Bell and von Neumann both arrive at no hidden variables. How is that "completely different" conclusions?

2 hours ago, Dalo said:

And I certainly do not doubt the relationship between Physics and Mathematics. Not believing that Bell's theorem is necessarily valid is not rejecting all mathematics.

If there's an error in the math, show it. Otherwise, what's invalid about it?

If it's not the math, then there has to be an error in the experimental part of it.

[Dalo]

If it is so easy to deny me any expertise in the matter, why is it so difficult to deal with the arguments themselves?

How is it scientific to concentrate on who is saying what instead of what he is saying?

I consider your attitude as unscientific as you consider mine to be. I am not convinced of your wisdom, and any knowledge without wisdom is foolishness.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Dalo said:

If it is so easy to deny me any expertise in the matter, why is it so difficult to deal with the arguments themselves?

Because you have been ignoring objections and corrections to your claims.

 

[Dalo]

From Whitaker's book:

"Bohr himself died in 1962. Since then the practically monolithic subservience 
to his views on quantum interpretation has fragmented somewhat. The leading 
spirit in the process of re-evaluation has been a physicist from Ireland, John Bell, 
who was stimulated both by the views of Einstein, and by Bohm's work  
mentioned already. His work is discussed with that of Bohm in Chapter 7. 
Many other physicists have joined in the discussion of these ideas, analysing 
the ingenious difficulties for the Copenhagen interpretation thought up by 
Einstein, Schrodinger, Bell and others, and putting forward interpretations of 
their own. A few of these ideas are discussed in Chapter 8. Some of these writers 
have been very critical of Bohr. Murray Gell-Mann [5], himself a winner of the 
Nobel Prize for Physics, for example, has accused Bohr of 'brain-washing' the 
physics community into thinking the problems were solved. " p.10

Edited December 19, 2017 by Dalo

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, Dalo said:

If it is so easy to deny me any expertise in the matter, why is it so difficult to deal with the arguments themselves?

It is difficult to explain why you are wrong because you don't understand the subject and so you just reject the explanations (this has been true in all of your threads).

34 minutes ago, Dalo said:

How is it scientific to concentrate on who is saying what instead of what he is saying?

And yet you are the one who constantly quotes the words of others but ignores the science. For example:

28 minutes ago, Dalo said:

From Whitaker's book:

38 minutes ago, Dalo said:

why is it so difficult to deal with the arguments themselves?

Dalo: I don't believe X

Others: Here is a simple explanation why you are wrong ...

D: That's a bit vague, can you be more specific?

O: <detailed explanation with evidence and a mathematical analysis>

D: I don't need all that maths and what about [irrelevant sidetrack]

O: What exactly are you asking?

D: How dare you!

O: I'm just trying to clarify

D: I don't believe Y, as I have been saying all along

O: So you have changed the subject

D: No, you keep introducing P and Q, but I want to talk about Z

O: OK. Do you understand <basic schoolboy physics>?

D: Why should I have to? If you can't prove me wrong ...

O: <collective sigh>

Edited December 19, 2017 by Strange

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Trying to build knowledge on ignorance is counterproductive. The ignorance MUST be removed first before you can construct anything meaningful. It's a shame when obviously intelligent people choose to ignore mainstream studies.

Thread closed.