Re: Why does EPR need two observables?

a student ha scritto:
...
Many people (particularly after the glorious sharpening by Bell, and
subsequent experiments by Aspect), regard the "locality" assumption (i)
above as suspect. However, given that no measurable non-local
influence is detectable (according to quantum mechanics), one can as
well suspect the "reality" assumption (ii). Some people also note
that the root of the trouble might be the implicit use of a third
"non-conspiracy" assumption, that experimenters have free choice in
what they are going to measure.

I am not aware of any physically meaningful definition of free will (or
free choice), yet the concept keeps popping up in quantum mechanical
discussions. Here is my try.

In a quantum relational perspective free will and randomness are
undistinguishable and hence physically identical. They both boil down
to unpredictability. Bob can't tell when the Geiger will click and he
can't tell when his gf Alice will dump him (or more prosaically,
whether she will choose 0 or 1). Both the Geiger and Alice have free
will.

Cheers,

IV

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is the beef of Evolution - An appetizer
    ... I suspect that both of you are about to become embroiled in an ancient ... argument that has been going on ever since quantum mechanics was ... "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Where is the beef of Evolution - An appetizer
    ... I suspect that both of you are about to become embroiled in an ancient ... argument that has been going on ever since quantum mechanics was ... Give it a chance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: DogmaWorld
    ... folks who Know things. ... even suspect. ... Nobody suspected probability theory and quantum mechanics were wrong ... Gerry Quinn ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)