Re: A causal explanation of non-local quantum entanglement



On Sep 16, 8:24 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But, as I say, you haven't exhausted the obvious before succumbing to
the urge to create weird new theories of everything.  Of course, don't
take my word for it.  Look up "Bertlmann's Socks".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not sure that I agree with the example of "Bertlmann's Socks".

It seems that the color of the sock in the back is neither black nor
white until you pull it out of the bag. It is in a state of
superposition, and so the sock example is an oversimplification.

No ?

Then you live in a world of weirdness to which quantum mechanics can
add little novelty. If I hand you a ham or pastrami sandwich in a
bag, is it neither ham nor pastrami until you open the bag? Does it
matter if I know what it is? And what about all the rest of the
universe, about which you have no definite knowledge? Is it all in a
superimposed state, or nothingness, until _you_ know?

It may be possible to construct a self-consistent, and even possibly
interesting (to some) philosophy along those lines, but I choose not
to play. You may do as you wish.

It still seems useful to distinguish cases of ostensible "quantum
weirdness" which are really no more weird than a choice of black and
white socks, or a ham or pastrami sandwich; however weird you choose
to believe such events may be. There _are_ sets of correlations of
observations which defy any attempts to consider them as no more weird
than, say, one unseen white sock, one red sock, and one argyle sock!

Use "oversimplification" circumspectly. Some things are just the
right amount of simplification, and using "oversimplification" too
often may be habit forming, and buzz-word centric.
.



Relevant Pages