‘Metaphysical Experiments’ Probe Our Hidden Assumptions About Reality

[Hume]

For Bell, the basics are locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured). His theorem, published in 1964, proved what’s known as Bell’s inequality.

As written, Bell’s theorem wasn’t testable, but in 1969 the physicist and philosopher Abner Shimony saw that it could be rewritten in a form suitable for the lab. Along with John Clauser, Michael Horne and Richard Holt, Shimony transformed Bell’s inequality into the CHSH inequality (named for its authors’ initials), and in 1972, in a basement in Berkeley, California, Clauser and his collaborator Stuart Freedman put it to the test by measuring correlations between pairs of photons.

‘Metaphysical Experiments’ Test Hidden Assumptions About Reality | Quanta Magazine

Experiments that test physics and philosophy “as a single whole” may be our only route to surefire knowledge about the universe.

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[goat]

For Bell, the basics are locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured). His theorem, published in 1964, proved what’s known as Bell’s inequality.

As written, Bell’s theorem wasn’t testable, but in 1969 the physicist and philosopher Abner Shimony saw that it could be rewritten in a form suitable for the lab. Along with John Clauser, Michael Horne and Richard Holt, Shimony transformed Bell’s inequality into the CHSH inequality (named for its authors’ initials), and in 1972, in a basement in Berkeley, California, Clauser and his collaborator Stuart Freedman put it to the test by measuring correlations between pairs of photons.

‘Metaphysical Experiments’ Test Hidden Assumptions About Reality | Quanta Magazine

Experiments that test physics and philosophy “as a single whole” may be our only route to surefire knowledge about the universe.

www.quantamagazine.org

Not all metaphysics can be measured but this is what I've been trying to say. It's obviously a taboo topic JPP is afraid to talk about.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For Bell, the basics are locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured). His theorem, published in 1964, proved what’s known as Bell’s inequality.

As written, Bell’s theorem wasn’t testable, but in 1969 the physicist and philosopher Abner Shimony saw that it could be rewritten in a form suitable for the lab. Along with John Clauser, Michael Horne and Richard Holt, Shimony transformed Bell’s inequality into the CHSH inequality (named for its authors’ initials), and in 1972, in a basement in Berkeley, California, Clauser and his collaborator Stuart Freedman put it to the test by measuring correlations between pairs of photons.

‘Metaphysical Experiments’ Test Hidden Assumptions About Reality | Quanta Magazine

Experiments that test physics and philosophy “as a single whole” may be our only route to surefire knowledge about the universe.

www.quantamagazine.org

One word proves Bell wrong on locality: Gravity.

 

[Hume]

One word proves Bell wrong on locality: Gravity.

How does "gravity" refute Bell's theorem?

 

[Hume]

Not all metaphysics can be measured but this is what I've been trying to say. It's obviously a taboo topic JPP is afraid to talk about.

No one is afraid.

 

[Kafka]

Not all metaphysics can be measured but this is what I've been trying to say. It's obviously a taboo topic JPP is afraid to talk about.

Whenever I see someone invoke "metaphysics" it feels like "placeholder" words. I honestly don't think most of us on this forum understand what the OP was about and good luck in getting anyone to actually explain what they mean in plain language.

It's like Quantum Mechanics. It's HEAVILY leveraged by the woo-woo crowd as big black box into which they can put all their mushy unformed thoughts and things they can't possibly understand, shake it around a bit and then spew back out the words.

I did note a couple of points though:

For Bell, the basics are locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured).

Actually the real quote from the article is: "For Bell, those assumptions are typically understood to be locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured)..."

A couple words got mistranscribed and others left out. Also quote marks were missing. Don't wanna run afoul of copyright laws.

As written, Bell’s theorem wasn’t testable, but in 1969 the physicist and philosopher Abner Shimony saw that it could be rewritten in a form suitable for the lab. Along with John Clauser, Michael Horne and Richard Holt, Shimony transformed Bell’s inequality into the CHSH inequality (named for its authors’ initials), and in 1972, in a basement in Berkeley, California, Clauser and his collaborator Stuart Freedman by measuring correlations between pairs of photons.

I wonder if anyone on this forum can explain any of this in their own words.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Whenever I see someone invoke "metaphysics" it feels like "placeholder" words. I honestly don't think most of us on this forum understand what the OP was about and good luck in getting anyone to actually explain what they mean in plain language.

It's like Quantum Mechanics. It's HEAVILY leveraged by the woo-woo crowd as big black box into which they can put all their mushy unformed thoughts and things they can't possibly understand, shake it around a bit and then spew back out the words.

I did note a couple of points though:




Actually the real quote from the article is: "For Bell, those assumptions are typically understood to be locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured)..."

A couple words got mistranscribed and others left out. Also quote marks were missing. Don't wanna run afoul of copyright laws.



I wonder if anyone on this forum can explain any of this in their own words.

I think the responsibility is on hume to tell what all this bullshit is about.

 

[Hume]

I think the responsibility is on hume to tell what all this bullshit is about.

I posted text from the article. I posted a link to the entire article. Are you still waiting for mommy to tie your shoes?!
Why do you stupid people think everyone has to explain things to you?

 

[Kafka]

I posted text from the article. I posted a link to the entire article. Are you still waiting for mommy to tie your shoes?!
Why do you stupid people think everyone has to explain things to you?

Because people can tell a bullshitter when they are incapable of explaining what they quote.

 

[Cypress]

For Bell, the basics are locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured). His theorem, published in 1964, proved what’s known as Bell’s inequality.

As written, Bell’s theorem wasn’t testable, but in 1969 the physicist and philosopher Abner Shimony saw that it could be rewritten in a form suitable for the lab. Along with John Clauser, Michael Horne and Richard Holt, Shimony transformed Bell’s inequality into the CHSH inequality (named for its authors’ initials), and in 1972, in a basement in Berkeley, California, Clauser and his collaborator Stuart Freedman put it to the test by measuring correlations between pairs of photons.

‘Metaphysical Experiments’ Test Hidden Assumptions About Reality | Quanta Magazine

Experiments that test physics and philosophy “as a single whole” may be our only route to surefire knowledge about the universe.

www.quantamagazine.org

It's only metaphysical in the sense that Bell's theorem supposedly was going to show whether the quantum wave function collapse was really probabilistic in an ontological sense, or whether we just lacked the information (hidden variables) to see that the collapse was actually deterministic.

Local hidden variables were ruled out, but universal hidden variables were never ruled out, though I never really understood the distinction between the two.

So as far as I know it's still an open question as to whether reality at the quantum scale is truly probabilistic or deterministic in the ontological sense.

 

[Hume]

It's only metaphysical in the sense that Bell's theorem supposedly was going to show whether the quantum wave function collapse was really probabilistic in an ontological sense, or whether we just lacked the information (hidden variables) to see that the collapse was actually deterministic.

Local hidden variables were ruled out, but universal hidden variables were never ruled out, though I never really understood the distinction between the two.

So as far as I know it's still an open question as to whether reality at the quantum scale is truly probabilistic or deterministic.

Some argue that quantum mechanics is deterministic. But I think randomness is part of nature.

 

[Kafka]

Some argue that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

How?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Some argue that quantum mechanics is deterministic. But I think randomness is part of nature.

how will it change our lives if quantum mechanics is deterministic or not?

 

[goat]

Whenever I see someone invoke "metaphysics" it feels like "placeholder" words. I honestly don't think most of us on this forum understand what the OP was about and good luck in getting anyone to actually explain what they mean in plain language.

It's like Quantum Mechanics. It's HEAVILY leveraged by the woo-woo crowd as big black box into which they can put all their mushy unformed thoughts and things they can't possibly understand, shake it around a bit and then spew back out the words.

I did note a couple of points though:




Actually the real quote from the article is: "For Bell, those assumptions are typically understood to be locality (the belief that things can’t influence each other instantaneously across space) and realism (that there’s some way things simply are, independent of their being measured)..."

A couple words got mistranscribed and others left out. Also quote marks were missing. Don't wanna run afoul of copyright laws.



I wonder if anyone on this forum can explain any of this in their own words.

Science uses six sigma to measure the quality of their test. There are some parapsychology tests that are being measured to 7 sigma or maybe even 8 sigma. I'm talking mental phenomena and not the odds of card counting like we see from the MIT blackjack team, although that's also interesting to me because I use my memory of dreams to figure the odds of future events. I used to think I had some form of precognition from my dreams but I'm pretty sure I'm playing the odds.

 

[Hume]

how will it change our lives if quantum mechanics is deterministic or not?

I doubt anything will change your life. You are extremely stupid.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I doubt anything will change your life. You are extremely stupid.

You're projecting again, assnugget.


we're all noting how you don't even know how your topic is relevant to reality.

 

[Hume]

Science uses six sigma to measure the quality of their test. There are some parapsychology tests that are being measured to 7 sigma or maybe even 8 sigma. I'm talking mental phenomena and not the odds of card counting like we see from the MIT blackjack team, although that's also interesting to me because I use my memory of dreams to figure the odds of future events. I used to think I had some form of precognition from my dreams but I'm pretty sure I'm playing the odds.

You should understand that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

 

[Hume]

You're projecting again, assnugget.


we're all noting how you don't even know how your topic is relevant to reality.

You asked a question stupid people ask. 'Why should I learn anything?'

 

[Kamala Trump]

You asked a question stupid people ask. 'Why should I learn anything?'

no. many fields of inquiry are worthwhile.

you 're full of bullshit however.

 

[Hume]

no. many fields of inquiry are worthwhile.

you 're full of bullshit however.

Why you take pleasure in being an asshole is your problem. Like I said, stupid people like you hate learning.