Spacetime is doomed.

[Markus Hanke]

14 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

Note also that what is required is causal explanation.

The causal explanation is the initial interaction of the particles, when the entanglement relationship is first created. At this point, a correlation between measurement outcomes is established. That’s really all there is to it.

[Schmelzer]

Just now, Markus Hanke said:

The causal explanation is the initial interaction of the particles, when the entanglement relationship is first created. At this point, a correlation between measurement outcomes is established. That’s really all there is to it.

If this is all, one can easily prove Bell's inequality.  If both measure the same direction, they get 100% correlation.  If the preparation is the common cause, and no interaction happens later, it follows that the results have been predefined.  This holds for all directions.  But for predefined results, Bell's inequality holds. 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

In a theory with preferred absolute time, if you choose absolute time as the time coordinate, yes, but in principle even in such a theory you are allowed to use other time coordinates.  

!

Moderator Note

Please consider the members who actually want to learn mainstream physics. Please consider how confusing it is to them to have you bringing up your unsupported pet theory in a section clearly marked as a mainstream topic. The only place for speculation is in the Speculation section. This is why we have the rule you broke, and why you're being warned yet again for thread hijacking. 

We expect you to follow the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

Which is what I have done.

Nope.

2 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

Once the principle is a methodological principle (correlations require causal explanations), the stance is not anti-scientific. 

But what if observations show your invented principle to be wrong.

[Schmelzer]

11 hours ago, Strange said:

But what if observations show your invented principle to be wrong.

What if observations show the invented principles of classical logic to be wrong?   

This is simply not possible.  Observations by themselves show nothing.  Something has happened, I have seen a nice picture.  Fine.

Observations can show something only if evaluated appropriately, following the rules of logic as well as the rules of scientific methodology.  How can observations show that these principles are wrong? 

For the principle that observable correlations require causal explanations it is impossible even in principle, because all what is imaginable is that you have correlations but no causal explanation. But this is simply an open scientific problem.  And an open scientific problem is certainly not a sufficient reason to reject scientific methodology. 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

What if observations show the invented principles of classical logic to be wrong?   

This is simply not possible. 

Classical logic can be shown to be "wrong" in the same sense that Newtonian gravity or Euclidean geometry is. In other words, incomplete (as you will know, it is extremely rare for any scientific theory to be shown to be completely wrong; I can only think of two examples in the history of science.)  

If you are unwilling to change what you believe even when observation shows that you are wrong, then that is religion not science. (And that may explain why you are clinging to an old idea that has been abandoned by serious scientists. What next? Phlogiston?)

2 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

For the principle that observable correlations require causal explanations

Where is this principle documented? As it is so important, you must be able to provide a reference.

[Schmelzer]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Classical logic can be shown to be "wrong" in the same sense that Newtonian gravity or Euclidean geometry is. In other words, incomplete (as you will know, it is extremely rare for any scientific theory to be shown to be completely wrong; I can only think of two examples in the history of science.)  

No, classical logic has a different status. 

That it is incomplete does not make it wrong.  (That it is incomplete was obvious to me even as a child, it was, last but not least, clear that for most of what one needs in everyday life classical logic is not directly applicable because we do not have enough certain presuppositions to derive something nontrivial. The logic of plausible reasoning - the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability - has solved this problem for me.)  

Physical theories, if not "completely wrong" (which happens, often enough, too, essentially all the GUTs, strings, and supersymmetric theories are certain candidates for being completely wrong) usually survive only as approximations.   So, in a strong sense they are completely wrong: Even an acceptable approximation is wrong.  Strangely, many people like to weaken the meaning of wrong and claim that once something is, under some circumstances, acceptable as an approximation, it is fine, not wrong. I'm unable to understand why one would do such things. You seem to be one of them. So, I think "not completely wrong" means "sometimes useful as an approximation". 

Quote

If you are unwilling to change what you believe even when observation shows that you are wrong, then that is religion not science. (And that may explain why you are clinging to an old idea that has been abandoned by serious scientists. What next? Phlogiston?)

I have explained that this is not the case.  It cannot be observation that shows you are wrong, but observation in combination with interpretation. This interpretation always uses logic as well as scientific methodology.  You simply ignore this explanation and repeat a primitive simplification.  And you completely ignore the argument that all that is imaginable as a conflict between observation and the principle that observable correlations require causal explanations is that for some observed correlation no causal explanation is known - and that this would be simply an open scientific problem, no justification for a rejection of the principle. 

So, how an empirical falsification of the principle that observable correlations require causal explanation

Quote

Where is this principle documented? As it is so important, you must be able to provide a reference.

You think so?  This principle is straightforward common sense.  Searching for a reference where such elementary things are explained?   Sorry, I'm too lazy for this. Feel free to conclude that, given that I do not present a reference, the principle is my personal invention, and that the arguments I have provided to support its importance can be, without reference, ignored. If you really would like to read something about it, I would recommend to search for literature about Reichenbach's principle of common cause.  

 

 

  

[Ghideon]

5 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

I'm too lazy

Ok. Good then there are other members of this forum.

5 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

If you really would like to read something about it, I would recommend to search for literature about Reichenbach's principle of common cause.  

If I get som time I'll try this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-Rpcc/. It seems to cover the topic, contain plenty of references.
Opinion: I've found Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to provide good articles regarding related topics before, such as various historical views about absolute and relative time and space.   Hence the above link may be a reasonable place to start.

 

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

Physical theories, if not "completely wrong" (which happens, often enough, too, essentially all the GUTs, strings, and supersymmetric theories are certain candidates for being completely wrong) usually survive only as approximations.   So, in a strong sense they are completely wrong: Even an acceptable approximation is wrong.  Strangely, many people like to weaken the meaning of wrong and claim that once something is, under some circumstances, acceptable as an approximation, it is fine, not wrong. I'm unable to understand why one would do such things. You seem to be one of them. So, I think "not completely wrong" means "sometimes useful as an approximation".

OK. So you think Newtonian gravity is completely wrong.

Interesting.

33 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

It cannot be observation that shows you are wrong

Only observation can show that you are wrong. That is how science proceeds.

33 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

You think so?  This principle is straightforward common sense.

People who have studied science know that "common sense " is pretty much the worst basis for deciding on the correctness of ideas. 

33 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

 Sorry, I'm too lazy for this.

OK. You are unable to support your personal beliefs. That is not surprising, it is the nature of quasi-religious beliefs to be unsupported by evidence or facts.

33 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

Feel free to conclude that, given that I do not present a reference, the principle is my personal invention, and that the arguments I have provided to support its importance can be, without reference, ignored.

Yep. Thank you for confirming that (rather obvious) fact.

22 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

If I get som time I'll try this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-Rpcc/. It seems to cover the topic, contain plenty of references.
Opinion: I've found Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to provide good articles regarding related topics before, such as various historical views about absolute and relative time and space.   Hence the above link may be a reasonable place to start.

I have just started reading that too. Interesting. Although, again, it is just a claimed principle not one that must be true. 

There is an entire website dedicated to correlations such as number of people who drowned in swimming pools versus number of films Nicolas Cage has appeared in. I would love to know what the causal relationship is. Presumably it involves an undetectable ether.

 

[Schmelzer]

43 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. So you think Newtonian gravity is completely wrong.

It is simply wrong.  The phrase "completely wrong" would be simply a quite meaningless amplification, the "not completely wrong" makes even less sense. 

Quote

Only observation can show you are wrong. That is how science proceeds.

Only observation - interpreted based on logic as well as the principles of scientific methodology.  This is how empirical science proceeds.  Logic and scientific methodology are not empirical science.  

Quote

People who have studied science know that "common sense " is pretty much the worst basis for deciding on the correctness of ideas. 

And I disagree with them.  

Quote

OK. You are unable to support your personal beliefs. That is not surprising, it is the nature of quasi-religious beliefs to be unsupported by evidence or facts.

No, I prefer to support them with arguments. To support something with references to authorities I leave to religious people.  I use references to refer to particular papers if I use a result of this paper, or to refer to some standard textsbooks if the issue is not that interesting for me.  For the important things, I rely on own arguments.

Edited February 15, 2020 by Schmelzer

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

It is simply wrong.  The phrase "completely wrong" would be simply a quite meaningless amplification, the "not completely wrong" makes even less sense. 

Newtonian gravity is a useful approximation. In some cases it gives the wrong answer. In that sense it could be described as "wrong" (although I think that would be an exaggeration).

The theory of phlogiston is completely wrong. It does not match the facts. If you want to call that sort of theory just wrong, then it seems bizarre to use the same word for a theory that works (Newtonian gravity). Because then no one knows what you mean by the word "wrong".

50 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

And I disagree with them. 

That doesn't surprise me at all.

51 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

No, I prefer to support them with arguments.

The only argument for your claim that correlation requires causality is the fact you believe it.

What is the causal connection between Nicolas Cage films and people drowning in swimming pools? There must be one, after all.