LogFAQs > #926392063

if you take the perspective that they're nonlocal, then some kind of information (even if we can't harness it) has been transmitted faster than the speed of light.

This is not what bell's equality says or does. You cannot transmit information faster than the speed light.

It's instead saying that if you interpret the Born Rule as a consequence of some sort of hidden variable theory, then you lose local realism. You can always just assume that quantum mechanics is quantum mechanics instead of a classical theory with hidden variables (which is what the EPR paper originally suggested).

Like, superdeterminism is what happens when you don't take the equations seriously, then wonder why nothing makes sense when reality obeys what the equations say rather than your intuitions. Of course you'd be confused when you pretend your confusion is a part of reality.

I'll point out that obviously you couldn't have gotten this insight from philosophy, but from actually understanding the physical facts on the ground / experiments that have been performed which differentiate different predictions from each other.


there are no valid local hidden variable theories. either we have to dramatically rethink our understanding of the structure of the universe and accept that the speed of light is a suggestion and that the universe operates non-locally, or that there aren't deeper equations and information that would describe the results of seemingly non-deterministic phenomena

like, locality not being true has a bunch of observable consequences in a bunch of observations that wouldn't even be hard to check. For example, the 1/r^2 dropoff in both the EM and gravity forces *is* essentially an ironclad statement of locality (if we had non-local interactions, then the surface area over which the force works wouldn't be proportional to 1/r^2ed, so you essentially have to repeatedly pile epicycle after epicycle to explain why *only* information propagates faster, not to mention how both special relativity and general relativity would be derived *at all* essentially because Einstein just assumed locality and then pushed as hard as he could on that assumption). At this point, you're not just beheading yourself with occam's razor, but bewilderingly stumped at why cutting yourself is so painful.

If something seems confusing and wrong, at least entertain the possibility that it is confusing and wrong because a wrong assumption got made somewhere.

Sarcasm aside, I don't have an informed opinion I just find it amusing how we are doomed to eternally debate subjects we can never fully understand. Oh humans. Silly us.

You are confusing the ignorance of people who don't even understand the basics of what is even happening (pop quiz, what's the difference between superpositions and the derivation of the born rule? if you aren't even aware that quantum mechanics actually talks about two conceptually independent types of randomness, then it's hard to see how you make *actual* sense of things like the delayed quantum choice eraser or the actual original experiment for bell's theorem.) This isn't a statement that these problems shouldn't be discussed at all, but pretending your own confusion has physical consequences is naturally going to stop actual new information from clearing up the confusion.