Simple QM question

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

People who post simply pointing to something else or referring to other people's opinions don't understand the subject sufficiently to consider what they say valid in my opinion. If they did they would just answer the question directly. If you are going to bother to post, do something other than make some "other people claim x" post.

This is a pointless and inappropriate remark, it is perfectly legitimate to offer a source to somebody who has asked a question and the source that Will offered you is spot-on appropriate. You might choose to discuss Bell's views, or those of EPR, but there's no use criticizing someone for having linked to them.

In any case, the status quo is that Bell's inequalities are found to be violated, in experiments involving singlet states.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

I'm of the opinion that it isn't my job to educate people too lazy to spend fifteen seconds googling. You have a world of information at your fingertips.

If you want to have a serious discussion about Bell's inequalities, then by all means, lets. But it isn't my job to type out the mathematical proofs and arguments you can find faster then I can type. I've linked to the paper above. Read it.

If you want to learn, put some effort in.
-Will

If you don't want to take part in a discussion, thats absolutely fine. My point is that when someone makes statements like "it isn't my job to educate people too lazy to spend fifteen seconds googling" are trying to impact a discussion without taking any personal responsibility for the claim being made.

In law this tecnique is called hearsay and is not allowed because the person making the claim could be lying but could not be prosecuted for purgery because they can always just claim the person they heard say something was the one who lied instead of themselves. This would make it easy to lie in court and get away with it.

In a debate it is not that you are likely to be lying, but rather that you could be trying to hide a lack of understanding of the topic while still trying to make your opponent appear wrong.

Furthermore I have seen that when a person has a really good understanding of a subject they can and usually will explain why objections can be dealt with in a convincing manner to anyone skeptical of their claims. When a person cannot do this with minimal effort, it tells me that they do not understand their opponents specific objection or how it can be dealt with. This means that as far as that person is concerned, there is a potential problem with what they believe that they are not aware of. This is not a good sign, since the only kind of knowledge a person is capable of having is the abscence of information that contradicts that which he believes.

All that being said, I should mention that not even most statistics students understand the assumptions necessary for any type of statistical reasoning to work, so I wouldn't consider it likely for you to easily understand my objection. Mostly only people who have studied philosophers objections to inductive reasoning (I think Hume is the main one) or just have meditated on the subject carefully themselves for whatever reason clearly understand the limitations of inductive reasoning and statistics.

Alot of the time someone has an objection to something you won't really understand it because it comes from their unique perspective. But the question is does that mean you listen and try to understand it (thus reinforcing your understanding of the subject even if they turn out to be wrong) or do you just look for some least effort way to make them look wrong even though for all you know they could be right?

But by the way, I've already read a bunch of stuff on the subject. In fact I'm not even sure where you got the idea I hadn't.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

This is a pointless and inappropriate remark, it is perfectly legitimate to offer a source to somebody who has asked a question and the source that Will offered you is spot-on appropriate. You might choose to discuss Bell's views, or those of EPR, but there's no use criticizing someone for having linked to them.

In any case, the status quo is that Bell's inequalities are found to be violated, in experiments involving singlet states.

I wasn't complaining that he was providing a link or information. I was addressing the manner in which he did so. The difference would be:

A: The following link might have useful information: link
and
B: Everyone else thinks you are wrong see look: LINK

The link isn't what I was talking about it was the sentence before the links.

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

If you don't want to take part in a discussion, thats absolutely fine. My point is that when someone makes statements like "it isn't my job to educate people too lazy to spend fifteen seconds googling" are trying to impact a discussion without taking any personal responsibility for the claim being made.

You asked a question, specifically about why can't we think of quantum correlations as some sort of hidden variables. I posted a link to a mathematical proof as to why. Either quantum mechanics is right, or local hidden variables are right, they are mutually exclusive. I pointed you to the mathematical proof of this statement.

In law this tecnique is called hearsay...

Not at all, I provided you with a published scientific paper that outlines, very rigorously, the logic. This isn't hearsay, but providing the most appropriate information straight from the original thinker.

In a debate it is not that you are likely to be lying, but rather that you could be trying to hide a lack of understanding of the topic while still trying to make your opponent appear wrong.

Or maybe I find it easier to tell you where to look then to type up dozens of pages of material. Again, I will answer any questions about the Bell's proof that you may have, and continue this discussion. I am not, however, going to type up Bell's entire argument.

Furthermore I have seen that when a person has a really good understanding of a subject they can and usually will explain why objections can be dealt with in a convincing manner to anyone skeptical of their claims.

You haven't made any objections. You asked a question, I linked you to the answer and you have seemingly refused to read it.

All that being said, I should mention that not even most statistics students understand the assumptions necessary for any type of statistical reasoning to work...

First of all, you are making assumptions (that I haven't studied Hume and don't understand the foundations of statistics). I also point out that objections to statistics are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Bell's work is based on probability theory, which is quite different then statistics in its foundations.

Statistical arguments could potentially be made to attempt to demonstrate certain experiments aren't valid, but simply do not apply to what we are discussing.

I also point out that some of the basic validations of quantum mechanics do not require complicated experiments (atoms are stable, for instance, no experiment necessary).

But by the way, I've already read a bunch of stuff on the subject. In fact I'm not even sure where you got the idea I hadn't.

I got the idea from your refusal to read the sources and discuss them.

A discussion of Bell's inequalities can be found in nearly any quantum text (see, for instance, Griffith's introductory text) so I made the assumption someone who had read on the subject would be familiar with the idea.
-Will

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

In law this tecnique is called hearsay and is not allowed because the person making the claim could be lying but could not be prosecuted for purgery because they can always just claim the person they heard say something was the one who lied instead of themselves. This would make it easy to lie in court and get away with it.

Apart from your faulty logic, this is pointless as we aren't here for a legal debate, or to the purpose of convicting anybody. It just shows you aren't here for scientific discussion. I assume that 'purgery' was meant to be perjury and not some act of purification. Hearsay doesn't enable a person to lie and get away with it, law simply distinguishes it from the witness testifying the fact itself, the difference is that between testifying X and testifying that Mr. Smith said X. It doesn't have the same significance in court.

In scientific debate it is common practice to give reference to previous work. I won't go into the details of the entire process here, it would be out of place, but in the specific case of you having posed a question, Will showed you the initial source of the most appropriate answer. I would add that much research has been done and is still in course but it now seems clear that Bell's inequalities are violated, there is no local realism and hidden variables couldn't clear up the interpretation of QM. If you want to discuss the details of this, after having fully gained familiarity with it, you are welcome to do so with the right kind of approach and manner. If instead you pose a question, as you did to start this thread, then respect the replies you get as required by the rules.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

I wasn't complaining that he was providing a link or information. I was addressing the manner in which he did so. The difference would be:

A: The following link might have useful information: link
and
B: Everyone else thinks you are wrong see look: LINK

The link isn't what I was talking about it was the sentence before the links.

And this is called dodging, here on Hypography. Just compare with the words of yours I had replied to.

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by Erasmus00

You asked a question, specifically about why can't we think of quantum correlations as some sort of hidden variables. I posted a link to a mathematical proof as to why. Either quantum mechanics is right, or local hidden variables are right, they are mutually exclusive. I pointed you to the mathematical proof of this statement.



Not at all, I provided you with a published scientific paper that outlines, very rigorously, the logic. This isn't hearsay, but providing the most appropriate information straight from the original thinker.



Or maybe I find it easier to tell you where to look then to type up dozens of pages of material. Again, I will answer any questions about the Bell's proof that you may have, and continue this discussion. I am not, however, going to type up Bell's entire argument.



You haven't made any objections. You asked a question, I linked you to the answer and you have seemingly refused to read it.



First of all, you are making assumptions (that I haven't studied Hume and don't understand the foundations of statistics). I also point out that objections to statistics are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Bell's work is based on probability theory, which is quite different then statistics in its foundations.

Statistical arguments could potentially be made to attempt to demonstrate certain experiments aren't valid, but simply do not apply to what we are discussing.

I also point out that some of the basic validations of quantum mechanics do not require complicated experiments (atoms are stable, for instance, no experiment necessary).

I got the idea from your refusal to read the sources and discuss them.

A discussion of Bell's inequalities can be found in nearly any quantum text (see, for instance, Griffith's introductory text) so I made the assumption someone who had read on the subject would be familiar with the idea.
-Will

As I just very clearly stated in response to q, I was not addressing the fact that you posted a link but the manner in which you did it. You still do not understand what I was talking about in regards to statistics. I didn't make any assumptions, because I did not say that you did understand the assumptions inherent to all statistical reasoning or the generality problem of induction. I simply stated that I wouldn't assume that you did, nor do people often automatically understand other people's objections since people are impacted differently by different information. But as I said your responses do not indicate you have an understanding of my objection.

And I read the related information long ago. The only assumption I see here is your repeated assertion that I did not.

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Apart from your faulty logic, this is pointless as we aren't here for a legal debate, or to the purpose of convicting anybody. It just shows you aren't here for scientific discussion. I assume that 'purgery' was meant to be perjury and not some act of purification. Hearsay doesn't enable a person to lie and get away with it, law simply distinguishes it from the witness testifying the fact itself, the difference is that between testifying X and testifying that Mr. Smith said X. It doesn't have the same significance in court.

In scientific debate it is common practice to give reference to previous work. I won't go into the details of the entire process here, it would be out of place, but in the specific case of you having posed a question, Will showed you the initial source of the most appropriate answer. I would add that much research has been done and is still in course but it now seems clear that Bell's inequalities are violated, there is no local realism and hidden variables couldn't clear up the interpretation of QM. If you want to discuss the details of this, after having fully gained familiarity with it, you are welcome to do so with the right kind of approach and manner. If instead you pose a question, as you did to start this thread, then respect the replies you get as required by the rules.

And this is called dodging, here on Hypography. Just compare with the words of yours I had replied to.

No the first line of your post is dodging. The post had nothing to do with convicting anyone. It was pointing out a general fallacy used in any kind of debate where someone tries to impact a discussion in this manner.

The definition of hearsay is irrelevant. I was pointing out the PURPOSE of not allowing hearsay in a courtroom, or any similar technique in any kind of debate. Why do you think it is illegal to lie in court? If you could lie with no consequence then no court would be able to collect accurate evidence from witnesses and the legal system would be useless. Hearsay is a way to circumvent this- you claim something and if its shown to be a lie you still don't get in trouble because you can just say it was the other person who lied.

Just like saying "Person X thinks you are false therefore you must be false" allows you to potentially have an impact on how a discussion appears and yet:

A) Not be able to have your claim refuted or analyzed in the current discussion because the other person is the one that made the claim not you, you just pointed to the other person's claim.

B) Not be resposible if the other person is wrong, which means you can do it all day long without consequence. Even if the specific claim you initially point to is wrong you can just say "oh they don't know everything about it still more people disagree" and point to another claim that is not your own. You can do this all day long without consequence which wastes the time of readers and your opponent and gives a false impression to readers until each referenced claim can be refuted.

As I already pointed out, my response had nothing to do with the posting of a link, but rather than manner in which the link was posted. Again this is what you referred to as dodging, as I made this perfectly clear.

[sebbysteiny]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

In law this tecnique is called hearsay and is not allowed because the person making the claim could be lying but could not be prosecuted for purgery because they can always just claim the person they heard say something was the one who lied instead of themselves. This would make it easy to lie in court and get away with it.

This isn't true. Heresay is allowed in a court of law. However it is treated as a special case and it's weight is less than normal evidence because the person making the statement cannot be brought to court for cross examination and the less direct the evidence is, the less convincing it will be. Also, you have to declare in advance if you are using hearsay. I believe the relevant chapter is CPR 25.3. Nevertheless, convincing evidence is convincing evidence even if it is hearsay.

[Qfwfq]

Krim, if you want to discuss local realism, hidden variables, Bell's inequalities and related topics, just discuss them. They are very interesting topics. But if you ask a question and someone tells you where you could find help don't get upset, if you have already familiarity with it just say so and proceed to make your points about it.

So, what do you think about the quantum description of things?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

You still do not understand what I was talking about in regards to statistics.

I do. Statistics is a study of data. In order to make any useful predictions with statistics we have to make certain assumptions about the data we have in our posession. The nature of those assumptions can fundamentally alter our conclusions.

What you don't understand is that Bell's argument is not statistical. Experimenters deal with statistics and statistical arguments, but theorists usually do not. You are failing to distinguish between probability theory and statistics.

Please answer the following questions: why do you believe Bell's argument has anything do with statistics? If it does not, why do you believe that discussing statistics is relevant?
-Will

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by sebbysteiny

This isn't true. Heresay is allowed in a court of law. However it is treated as a special case and it's weight is less than normal evidence because the person making the statement cannot be brought to court for cross examination and the less direct the evidence is, the less convincing it will be. Also, you have to declare in advance if you are using hearsay. I believe the relevant chapter is CPR 25.3. Nevertheless, convincing evidence is convincing evidence even if it is hearsay.

I'm not sure what state you are from, but where I am the only thing close to hearsay allowed in court is that you can testify how someone's behavior made you feel. In some cases people try to run with this "He made me feel like he was going to kill me", but most judges are strictly against it.

Allowing unrestrained hearsay in court would be disastrous to the legal system, as anyone could simply lie in court in favor of whatever outcome they desire and not face any consequences for it. "Well that's what he said so don't look at me"

[Qfwfq]

This is totally off topic.